Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I would again remind my colleagues that the last time we were running a budget surplus was during the years of the Clinton administration. During that period of time our spending was at a level that was higher than the limitation in here, and we were paying our obligations. What this would do would create an anti- majoritarian, anti-democratic provision in the Constitution that says you can't balance your budget at 19 percent of GDP, even if that's the will of the American people, even if it's how we did it back during the Clinton administration. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I know that the gentleman is new to the body, but there were lots of decisions made over the past years for which the bills are coming due now. For example, in 2005 when our Republican colleagues headed up the House, we passed a prescription drug add-on to Medicare which was not funded, not one penny. It was all put on the credit card. Two wars were put on the credit card; and again, tax cuts in 2001, 2003 that disproportionately benefited the very wealthy that created this gap. So I agree with the gentleman. It is time, sir, to take responsibility for our actions. And it is interesting to hear some folks say that it is a sacrifice for us to have to pay bills for decisions that were made in the past. Now, yes, we need to get the deficit under control. And again, the President of the United States has put on the table a balanced approach over 10 years, $3 of spending cuts to $1 of revenue. And again, our Republican colleagues have walked away from the table because they don't want to raise one penny of revenue from closing corporate tax loopholes. Just to be clear, the President's plan would extend middle class tax cuts beyond 2013. The President's plan would say let's extend the payroll tax cut for 2012. But he says let's get serious about our deficit and let's do it in a balanced way with shared responsibility. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), a member of the Ways and Means Committee who knows a lot about the importance of shared responsibility.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

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

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that I advise the House of the death of my constituent and former Member of the House, the Honorable Charles W. Whalen, Jr., on June 2, 2011 at Sibley Hospital in Washington, DC. Rep. Whalen, 90, represented Ohio's Third Congressional District from 1967-79 and had resided with his family in Bethesda, Maryland since 1966. Prior to his election to the U.S. Congress, Congressman Whalen served for 12 years in the Ohio Legislature and was instrumental in the enactment of Ohio's Fair Housing Law. A liberal Republican, he was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1966 and was reelected by wide margins in every subsequent election. In fact, in 1974, he was the only Republican who was unopposed in both the primary and general elections. Upon his election to the House, Congressman Whalen was initially assigned to the House Armed Services Committee and subsequently became a member of the International Affairs Committee. He served on the Subcommittee on Africa and became an expert on that continent, visiting every single country in that vast land mass. Congressman Whalen, who served as an Army officer in the India-Burma Theater in World War II, developed very strong reservations about and then opposition to the Vietnam War shortly after coming to Washington. His former chief of staff has noted that Congressman Whalen was attending the funeral of a young Marine from Dayton when he found himself unable to justify to grieving relatives the loss of the young man. The memory of that event remained in the forefront of his mind and guided his efforts to do all he could to bring that conflict to an end. Although his early efforts to end the war were not popular, among his most notable achievements was the Nedzi-Whalen Amendment that he cosponsored with his good friend and colleague, Congressman Lucien Nedzi (D-MI). The bill sought to end military funding in order to bring the war to a swift close. Although it did not pass, the bill mustered a sizable showing in the House, reflecting growing sentiment to end the war. Congressman Whalen was a prolific writer, authoring or coauthoring five books. ``How to End the Draft: The Case for the All-Volunteer Army,'' published in 1967 and co-authored with four other GOP moderates, proposed the end of the draft. Most of its recommendations were later adopted by the Nixon Administration, which fashioned them into the legislation that created the all-volunteer military that we have today. His landmark book, ``Your Right to Know,'' endorsed the right of reporters to keep sources confidential. Published in 1973, this book is used today in many journalism, political science and law courses. Congressman Whalen coauthored two works of history with his wife, Barbara: ``The Longest Debate: A Legislative History of the 1964 Civil Rights Act'' (1985) and ``The Fighting McCooks: America's Famous Fighting Family'' (2006), which told the story of two Ohio brothers and their 13 sons who served in the Union Army during the Civil War. Congressman Chuck Whalen, who has been laid to rest in Dayton, Ohio, was a great and courageous American who worked tirelessly for his constituents and his country. He was widely respected by members of both parties and showed that it was possible for reasonable people to differ and maintain civility at the same time. His was an example that we all should follow. I would like to insert in the Congressional Record Congressman Whalen's obituaries from the Washington Post and the New York Times. [From the New York Times, June 30, 2011] C.W. Whalen Jr., 90, Dies; Led Vietnam War Dissent (By William Grimes) Charles W. Whalen Jr., a six-term congressman from Ohio who led Republican opposition to the Vietnam War and espoused a variety of liberal causes, died on Monday in Washington. He was 90. His death was confirmed by a nephew, Jim Whalen. Mr. Whalen, a former economics professor and state legislator from Dayton, won election from Ohio's Third District in 1966 and, on taking office, quickly moved to the forefront of liberal Republicans opposed to the war, a position he articulated forcefully as a member of the Armed Services Committee. In 1967 he joined with four colleagues who belonged to the liberal Republican club known as the Wednesday Group to write a detailed proposal to end the draft and establish an all- volunteer military within five years. The recommendations in ``How to End the Draft: The Case for an All-Volunteer Army'' included increased pay, improved retirement benefits, expanded educational programs and a greater advertising budget for recruitment. Most were adopted over the next several years. In the early 1970s Mr. Whalen was the sponsor or a co- sponsor of several unsuccessful amendments aimed at cutting the military's budget, ending the draft or imposing a deadline to withdraw all American troops from Southeast Asia. A free-market conservative, he opposed the Vietnam War largely for economic reasons. The money could be put to better use, he argued, addressing domestic problems normally thought of as the preoccupation of liberals, like education, social injustice and urban decline. A survey by Congressional Quarterly in 1974 found that he had voted against a majority of his Republican colleagues 72 percent of the time the previous year. Mr. Whalen also took a resolute stand in favor of press freedom, especially the right of journalists to protect confidential sources. He addressed the subject in ``Your Right to Know'' (1973), to which the CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite contributed a foreword. Charles William Whalen Jr., known as Chuck, was born on July 31, 1920, in Dayton. He attended the University of Dayton, where he received a degree in business education in 1942. During World War II he served with the Army in the China, India and Burma theater. After earning a master's degree in business administration from Harvard in 1946, he became vice president of the Dayton Dress Company, owned by his father. In the early 1950s he began teaching at the University of Dayton, where he became chairman of the economics department in 1962. He served in the state's General Assembly for 12 years, writing the state's first fair-housing law, before winning election to the House of Representatives in 1967. He was hugely popular in his home district, even though Democrats and Independents far outnumbered Republicans, and even though his antiwar stance threatened jobs at Wright- Patterson Air Force Base, near Dayton. A tireless door-to-door campaigner, in 1970 and 1972 he carried his district with three-quarters of the vote. In 1974 he was the only congressman to run unopposed in both the primary and the general election. He retired in 1979, tired of the increasing friction with local party officials and Republican leaders in Washington, who found him too liberal. He also expressed frustration with Congress as an agent for change. ``We've come to realize there is a limit to our powers,'' he told The New York Times in 1978, explaining why he and several other House members were not running for re-election. ``We have a feeling that we're not as powerful as we thought we were.'' After leaving office, he became a Democrat. He spent much of his time in retirement doing the research for two works of history that he wrote with his wife, Barbara, a former journalist: ``The Longest Debate: A Legislative History of the 1964 Civil Rights Act'' (1985) and ``The Fighting McCooks: America's Famous Fighting Family'' (2006), about two Ohio brothers and their 13 sons who served in the Union Army during the Civil War. Mr. Whalen, who lived in Bethesda, Md., is survived by his wife and their six children, Charles, of Delray Beach, Fla.; Daniel, of Washington; Edward, of Reston, Va.; Joseph, of Lambertville, N.J.; Anne McLindon of Bethesda; and Mary Scherer of Brambleton, Va.; and seven grandchildren.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, today's FY 2012 Energy and Water Appropriations bill continues the majority's record of missed opportunities and misguided priorities when it comes to our Federal budget. First and foremost, thoughtful Americans from across the political spectrum agree that we need to end our current dependence on foreign oil and replace it with affordable, reliable, homegrown clean energy. Yet this bill slashes funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy research programs by 40 percent below President Obama's request--and it decimates the game-changing work being done by the Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy (ARPA-E) with a proposed 80 percent cut below the President's recommended level. The health of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and the rest of our Nation's waterways often rely on the Army Corps of Engineers. But today's legislation actually blocks the Corps from clarifying which waterways are covered by Clean Water Act protections. Finally, this bill shortchanges nuclear non-proliferation and environmental cleanup efforts, reducing our ability to secure nuclear materials around the world and mitigate the impact of more than a half century's worth of national security-related nuclear activity here at home. I urge a no vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to today's legislation, the so-called ``Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act,'' which represents another effort on the part of this Republican Majority to systematically dismantle environmental protections by eroding EPA authority under the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act is a partnership between federal and state authorities to maintain water quality standards across the nation. But it also provides a federal backstop if states cannot or will not effectively enforce those standards. As we all know, water does not stop at the state line. Policies in one state upstream will affect water quality in another downstream. This is a serious issue in my state of Maryland, where the Chesapeake Bay feeds from a watershed that includes six states and the District of Columbia. Inadequate environmental protection in any of those states can have grave consequences for the health of the nation's largest estuary. It is not difficult to imagine the costs of dismantling Clean Water Act authority. Prior to its enactment in 1972, our nation's waters were in crisis. Lake Erie could not support aquatic life. A floating oil slick on the Cuyahoga River caught fire. Industrial polluters used lakes and streams as dumping grounds for dangerous chemicals and two- thirds of our nation's lakes, rivers, and coastal waters were unsafe for fishing or swimming. The Clean Water Act was a simple and powerful solution--a baseline for water quality with a federal safety net in the event of state inaction. For nearly 40 years, this approach has helped preserve access to safe water to all Americans. There is no reason or justification to roll back those protections today. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2011 (H.R. 1309). The National Flood Insurance Program is the primary source of reliable and affordable flood insurance for over 5.6 million homes and businesses. Today's bipartisan legislation reauthorizes the program for five years through FY 2016 and contains numerous reforms designed to put the program on firmer financial footing. The bill is supported by the National Association of Realtors, the National Association of Homebuilders, the American Insurance Association, the Property Casualty Insurers Association and the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America, and in my judgment, strikes the proper balance between providing Americans with the flood insurance protection they need at a price taxpayers can afford.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2417 proposes to repeal bipartisan, common sense lighting efficiency standards signed into law by President Bush in 2007. These technology neutral standards simply call for efficiency improvements of 25 to 30 percent above traditional incandescent bulbs and are broadly supported by industry, environmental groups and consumers alike. Mr. Speaker, lighting accounts for approximately 19 percent of our total electricity use. So the potential for energy savings in the lighting sector is substantial. In fact, when these new lighting efficiency standards take effect in 2012, they will save the average American household over $100 a year in lower electricity bills, negate the need for 30 large power plants and avoid approximately 100 million tons of carbon pollution, which is the equivalent of taking 17 million cars off the road. Proponents of this bill falsely claim that these new standards will somehow eliminate incandescent bulbs or restrict consumer choice. In reality, major manufacturers including GE, Philips and Osram Sylvania are already manufacturing a number of bulbs--including incandescent bulbs--that meet the new efficiency standards. Additionally, these improved standards have drawn new entrants into the market, like North Carolina-based Cree, whose innovative LED products are creating jobs right here in the United States and giving consumers more choice, not less. Mr. Speaker, the traditional incandescent bulb was invented over 100 years ago. We should no more turn back the clock on lighting efficiency than we should return to the days of ice boxes and the horse and buggy. This is fundamentally backward looking legislation that should be soundly rejected.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the FY2012 Defense Appropriations bill. I want to also thank Chairman Young and Ranking Member Dicks for working together to craft this important bipartisan legislation. As our men and women in uniform and their families sacrifice to keep our country safe, Congress must provide them with the support and equipment necessary to accomplish their mission. In this bill we have appropriated funding for equipment procurement, base operations, military healthcare and pay in order to address current defense needs and future challenges; to continue funding research and development; and to improve the essential health and quality of life programs for the men and women of the Armed Services and their families. In total, the bill allocates $530 billion for Defense Department operations and support. This funding cuts $9 billion from the President's request while increasing overall base funding for the Department of Defense by $17 billion. While I support this legislation, I believe we can meet all our national security needs with fewer resources. The testimony before the Budget Committee on July 8, 2011 made clear that we can reduce defense spending without compromising our national security. That is why I voted for the Frank Amendment that would have reduced the amount of this increase by half. I also supported an amendment offered by Representative Mulvaney that would have held funding in the bill to FY2011 levels. Unfortunately, both amendments failed. The bill provides $32.3 billion for defense health programs, which is $119 million above the President's request and $935 million above what was enacted in the FY2011 bill. This figure includes a $125 million increase over the president's request for improved treatment and research of traumatic brain injury and psychological health conditions, $30 million for orthopedic research and $15 million for restorative transplant research, and $2.3 billion for family support and advocacy programs. To help financially struggling military families cope in this challenging economy, the bill also includes military pay funding of $5.4 billion above last year's level and includes a pay raise of 1.6% and a comparable increase for housing and subsistence funding. To ensure that all the funds allocated are used properly and for their intended purpose, the bill also contains enhanced oversight and accountability measures. Mr. Chair, our troops deserve our support for the daily sacrifices they make for the security of the Nation. They depend on us to ensure that they have the resources they need to do their jobs. They also count on us to see to it that the health and welfare of their families are assured so they can focus on the mission at hand. That is what this bill is about and I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, America's patent system and the protection of intellectual property is an important source of innovation and national strength for our country. For that reason, any patent reform proposal must be judged based on its ability to improve patent quality, reduce the current backlog and provide patent holders greater certainty with respect to their patent rights. On that score, I believe the America Invents Act, on balance, achieves that objective. In particular, our office received a number of calls regarding the proposed change to a first-inventor-to-file system. A variety of stakeholders--from the U.S. Patent Office to large multinational companies to biotech firms and angel investors in my district to the academic research community to independent inventors on both sides of this issue--weighed in with their respective points of view. In the final analysis, I concluded that the first-inventor-to-file standard in today's legislation will provide greater certainty for innovators, produce stronger patents and enhance our nation's economic competitiveness.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I support limited U.S. involvement in NATO military operations in Libya because I believe it is the right thing to do. The Qaddafi Regime was threatening to show ``no mercy'' against the rebels and swore to go ``door to door to hunt them down like rats.'' In contrast with our NATO allies and the Arab League, the President decided to act to prevent a massacre. Failure to act will have also sent the wrong signal to other dictators trying to snuff out the Arab Awakening. The president assured us that, in time, leadership of military operations would be handed over to NATO and that the U.S. would then assume a supportive role. True to that pledge, the U.S. now plays a non-combat, support role comprised primarily of intelligence gathering, logistics, surveillance and search and rescue. Three-quarters of sorties, including the majority of the strike sorties flown in Libya are being conducted by our coalition partners; all 20 of the ships enforcing the arms embargo of Libya are European and Canadian; and no American troops are on the ground. It is for these reasons that I am supporting H.J. Res. 68, a resolution authorizing limited use of U.S. Armed Forces in support of the NATO mission in Libya and opposing H.R. 2278, a bill to defund all but a specified list of U.S. actions in support of the NATO effort. H.J. Res. 68 authorizes for one year the continued supportive role the U.S. is already playing in Libya while expressing Congress' concurrence with the language in the UN Resolution forbidding the use of ground forces in the military action. Conversely, I cannot support H.R. 2278, a bill to defund all operations other than search and rescue; intelligence gathering; aerial refueling; and operational planning. This bill threatens the mission and the safety of coalition forces. Under the specific set of circumstances the president faced in Libya, I believe he made the right decision. To undermine the effort at this moment would be a serious mistake.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the Jobs and Permitting Act. This legislation has nothing to do with lowering the price of gasoline--and even less to do with jobs. Instead, H.R. 2021 simply proposes to exempt significant offshore drilling activities from the Clean Air Act while eliminating or truncating appropriate permit review. Additionally, contrary to proponents' focus on Alaska, today's legislation threatens onshore air quality up and down the east and west coasts, including my home state of Maryland. Madam Chair, the current majority is somehow under the impression that you can't have jobs unless you have dirty air. The forty year history of the Clean Air Act proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that this simply isn't true. Rather than rolling back the clock on our environmental laws, we should be accelerating the deployment of clean energy technologies that will create jobs, grow our economy and make our nation more secure.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to the misguided Fiscal Year 2012 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. This bill puts the economic recovery at risk by cutting funding to the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, which will prevent the CFTC from implementing important reforms in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act. The bill also slashes critical food security programs aimed at protecting our most vulnerable citizens, children and seniors. The bill also cuts important food safety programs at the Food and Drug Administration. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act took the important step of bringing the vast majority of over-the-counter derivatives out of the shadows and onto regulated exchanges and clearinghouses, where the risk will be borne by the counterparties and the markets they trade on--not the taxpayer. Astonishingly, rather than providing the Commodities Future Trading Commission with the resources necessary to implement this critical reform, the new majority is proposing to slash CFTC funding by 44 percent below President Obama's request--and $30 million below current levels. This is like telling a cop he's got seven times more territory to patrol but less money to do it with. Unable to repeal the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform law, the Republicans are now clearly trying to starve it to death--which is a prescription for continued pain at the pump as speculators run amok in our futures markets and gouge hard-working consumers. This is a step in the wrong direction and ignores the mistakes of the past. The cuts to food safety net programs in this legislation are devastating at a time when millions of Americans are unable to purchase food. The cuts also target the most vulnerable in our society. The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children is cut by $650 million in this bill. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that the cuts in this bill would force WIC to turn away 200,000 to 350,000 eligible low-income women and young children next year. The bill would force WIC to turn away 3,200 to 5,600 eligible low-income women and young children in Maryland. The USDA says WIC has saved more than 200,000 babies from dying at birth. Economists estimate that every $1 invested in WIC saves between $1.77 and $3.13 in health care costs in the first 60 days after an infant's birth by reducing the instance of low-birthweight babies and improving child immunization rates. The bill also cuts food aid for low-income seniors through cuts to the Commodity Supplemental Food Program and assistance to food banks through the Emergency Food Assistance Program. According to the USDA's Economic Research Service, 50.2 million Americans lived in food-insecure households in 2009, including 17.2 million children. The bill slashes the Food and Drug Administration by $572 million. These cuts are 21 percent below the President's request and $285 million or 12 percent below current funding levels. These cuts will prevent FDA from improving food safety efforts and increase the risk of food-borne illnesses. The CDC estimates that 48 million Americans get sick from contaminated food, 325,000 people are hospitalized, and 5,000 of these people die every year. E. coli outbreaks in Europe recently killed 31 people and made more than 3,000 people sick. Outbreaks like this remind us of the importance of strong food safety regulations. I will monitor the progress of this bill in the Senate and conference. I am hopeful that future changes and improvements will give me a chance to vote on a more acceptable alternative.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Culberson and Ranking Member Bishop for bringing the FY 2012 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill to the floor today. This bill provides funding that is critical to the strength and the well-being of our military, and supports the education and training of our veterans, construction of Department of Defense hospitals, schools and family housing. The bill provides a total of $143.9 billion in FY 2012, of which $69.5 billion is mandatory funding for pensions and other benefits administered by the Veterans Benefit Administration. This funding will support service-connected compensation programs that help an estimated 4 million veterans, survivors and dependents and makes pension payments to 507,000 veterans and survivors. The bill also provides $60.2 billion in discretionary funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs and $14 billion for military construction and family housing. This includes funds for inpatient care and treatment of beneficiaries in 152 hospitals, 101 domiciliary residential rehabilitation treatment programs, 133 nursing homes, 300 Vet Centers, 50 mobile Vet Centers and 807 outpatient clinics, which include independent, satellite, community-based and rural outreach clinics. Our nation's servicemembers and veterans and their families deserve the best quality care and support available. This measure helps to fund the programs and benefits they have earned for their service and sacrifice. I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of the bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 292, offered by Representative Boehner and H. Con. Res. 51, offered by Representative Kucinich. I strongly oppose putting any U.S. forces on the ground in Libya and voted in support of the amendment offered to the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act by Representative Conyers which prohibited funds from being used for that purpose. These resolutions are both flawed. I cannot support either of them because they ignore the reasons the U.S. joined NATO operations in Libya and the president's efforts to keep Congress informed, and each fails to recognize the support role American forces now play since we transferred leadership of the mission to NATO. I disagree with the Boehner Resolution's accusation that the president has failed to provide Congress with a compelling rationale for U.S. military activities in Libya. On March 21, 2011, President Obama wrote to Congress notifying us of his decision to deploy U.S. forces against the Qaddafi Regime in response to a request from the Arab League. In his letter, President Obama stated that his actions were undertaken to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and to address a growing threat to international peace and security. Further, the president fulfilled his pledge to greatly redefine the role of American forces and they now play a non-combat, supporting role comprised of intelligence gathering, logistics, surveillance and search and rescue. Finally, I oppose the Kucinich resolution's call for an immediate withdrawal of forces from Libya. In his speech last month on North Africa, the president said the U.S. joined the NATO operation in Libya because ``we saw the prospect of imminent massacre and we heard the Libyan people's call for help.'' Not acting in the face of Qaddafi's threat to show ``no mercy'' to his people and to go door to door hunting them like rats would have been an abdication of our moral duty as global citizens and would have sent the wrong message to the tyrants of the world. In his speech on Libya the president said, ``To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader--and more profoundly--our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different.'' Given the conversion of special factors in Libya, I believe the president's decision has been justified.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the FY12 Homeland Security Appropriations Act. The bill makes severe cuts to the funding available to front line employees of the Department of Homeland Security for critical operations along our borders, at our nation's airports and seaports, and for responding to natural disasters. The bill also reduces funding for state and local preparedness grant programs. The bill provides a total of $1 billion for all State and local grants and $350 million for Firefighter Assistance Grants. Respectively, these figures are 65 percent and 50 percent below an already reduced request. Given the budgetary challenges already faced by our states, these cuts, if permitted to survive through the legislative process, could be devastating. According to the International Association of Fire Fighters, 1,600 fewer local firefighters will be on the job if the cuts in this bill are enacted into law. Such deep cuts will damage local preparedness, emergency response and the economic recovery. I was happy to vote for an amendment offered by Ranking Member Price that permits states and local governments to rehire laid-off firefighters and to prevent others from being laid off. The amendment also waives certain budgetary requirements local fire departments have to fulfill to qualify for a grant. But, even with the addition of this important amendment, I cannot support a Homeland Security funding bill that ultimately makes the homeland less secure. The House voted to include on the floor an amendment offered by Representative Mica that stripped hundreds of millions of dollars out of the Transportation Security Administration's budget and an amendment offered by Representative Rokita that limits the collective bargaining rights of TSA employees. These amendments will devastate morale among the TSA workforce and, by slashing TSA's resources, will make Americans less safe. I will monitor the progress of this bill in the Senate and conference. I am hopeful that future changes and improvements will give me a chance to vote on a more acceptable alternative.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague. Mr. Speaker, this is not an ordinary House rule we will be voting on today. The resolution deems the provisions of the Republican budget to have ``full force and effect.'' In other words, a vote on the rule today is essentially another vote on the Republican budget plan that protects subsidies for the Big Oil companies, while ending the Medicare guarantee and slashing investments in education. Those wrongheaded priorities were thoroughly rejected in the recent special election in New York. The American people clearly oppose a one-sided plan that would immediately reopen the prescription drug doughnut hole and tells seniors that in 10 years they will pay $9,000 more for their current set of benefits or take deep cuts in those benefits. Ladies and gentlemen, the median income of seniors on Medicare is less than $21,000 a year. What kind of budget says we're going to require seniors with median incomes of $21,000 a year to pay $9,000 more in just 10 years while cutting the rate for millionaires, the top marginal tax rate for millionaires by 30 percent? What kind of budget would do it? Well, the budget that was passed by the Republicans a few months ago and the one they're doubling down on today. We have to have a balanced budget plan. We have to have a plan that addresses this from all aspects, not a plan that the former Speaker of the House described as a radical plan that was driven by right-wing social engineering. It is very ironic that on the very day we will be swearing in the next Member of Congress from New York's 26th District that we will be voting again on a budget that the people of that district, like people around the country, rejected because--the former Speaker of the House had it right--it was radical and right wing and not the right plan for America.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague. The question we're facing here is what is the best way forward. We all understand we have to have a budget deficit plan that's predictable and addresses that issue, but why in the world would we adopt a one- sided approach that has those priorities, that says we're going to slash Medicare and give tax cuts for the wealthy?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague for yielding. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a political stunt. I just heard my friend from Texas on the Republican side say Republicans wanted to tear up the credit card. It was just a few weeks ago when the Republican budget passed this House. All but four Republicans voted for it. Let me show you what that did to our credit card. Here it is. We are at about $14 trillion in debt. The budget all but four Republicans voted for takes us up toward $23 trillion, $24 trillion in debt. An $8 trillion increase in the national debt by passing the Republican budget, so that clearly this isn't about tearing up the credit card. What is this about? This is about threatening to default on the full faith and credit of the United States unless we put into place the Republican budget, including their plan to end the Medicare guarantee and to slash Medicare benefits. That's what this is all about. They've said, Whoa, we're going to hold this whole thing up until we get our way. Let me tell you what their way would do to seniors. And we've seen it before on the floor of the House. What it means is that seniors will be paying thousands and thousands of dollars more for Medicare or getting their benefits slashed beginning in 2012. And it gets worse and worse and worse, so that by the year 2030 you're talking about seniors having to pay $12,000 more for their Medicare because the support they're getting is going down, while the costs in the private market, which the Republican plan forces them to go into, go up and up and up. So while the costs they face go up and up and up, the help they get under Medicare goes down, down, down, and they're left holding the bill. What's been interesting in the last couple weeks in connection with this debt ceiling debate is to hear these Republican proposals that say, Hey, don't worry about it. You know what? We'll pay China. We'll pay our overseas foreign creditors on our bonds. We'll take care of them. But guess what? We don't have to pay our full faith and credit on our obligations to America's seniors. We don't have to pay Medicare. We don't have to pay Social Security. Pay off the bond holders. Take care of them. But let's follow through on this plan to decimate Medicare. And at the end of the day, that's what this is all about. Because we all understand that we've got to get the deficit under control. We're having negotiations with the Vice President to come up with a responsible, balanced plan. But you're trying to force the Republican plan, which Newt Gingrich just the other day acknowledges was a radical right-wing piece of social engineering, until of course he was bludgeoned by the right wing to withdraw his statement. He was calling the shots as they were. He was saying, You know what? This isn't such a good idea. And what's really outrageous about this charade is you are now threatening the entire U.S. economy in order to get your way on a radical right-wing Medicare plan that's bad for America's seniors.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, this will be the first time that I have voted against a Defense Authorization Act and I do so with great reluctance. But I also do so with confidence that it is the right decision. Section 1034 of this bill gives this President and all future Presidents vastly expanded authority to take America to war without further congressional action. It gives the Executive a virtual blank check by authorizing the President to deploy an unlimited number of troops into a war of unlimited duration based on ill-defined standards. The language in 1034 represents a total abdication of congressional responsibility under the Constitution. The President already has broad authority to use military force against al Qaeda and Taliban forces pursuant to the Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF) that was adopted in 2001. That provision states: That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. This bill replaces the existing AUMF with a new provision that provides the President with vast new war-making authority. Under the umbrella of the war against terrorism, it expands the existing broad authority in at least three ways: De-links use of force from 9/11 attacks The original language gave the President the authority to use military force against any entities he determined to be connected to the attacks of September 11, 2001 or any nation, organization or persons he determined harbored such entities. The new language expands the authority to target entities regardless of their connection to the September 11 attacks. Permits attacks on undefined ``associated forces'' The original language authorized all necessary force against the entities responsible for the 9/11 attacks, but did not provide the authority to wage war against undetermined ``associated forces.'' The term ``associated forces'' is totally undefined and would allow any President to apply that term with great elasticity to go to war without congressional approval in any number of situations. Allows use of force against entities that ``support'' the Taliban, al Qaeda or ``associated forces'' The original language allowed the use of force against entities that ``harbored'' the terrorist groups that perpetuated the attacks of 9/11. The new language allows the President to wage war, without additional congressional consent, against any entities that substantially support the Taliban, al Qaeda or ``associated forces.'' This is a much weaker standard than the existing requirement. Had the Congress included this language in the 2001 AUMF, President Bush could have sent American troops into Iraq without seeking a separate resolution to use force. This language authorizes the Executive to launch military action against an entity that had nothing to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001 so long as the President determines that a country or organization is substantially supporting the Taliban, al Qaeda or ``associated forces.'' The Bush administration claimed that the regime of Saddam Hussein was allowing Iraqi territory to be used to train al Qaeda elements. While I believe the Congress made a mistake in voting to authorize President Bush to go to war in Iraq, at least Congress debated and voted on the decision. With this new provision in place, no such vote would have been required. Under the Constitution, the President of the United States already has relatively broad powers to use military force as Commander in Chief. In addition, the existing Authorization of the Use of Military Force provides the President with additional authority to take military action in a wide array of situations without seeking additional congressional approval or a declaration of war. It is a reckless surrender of congressional responsibility for the Congress to write this new open-ended blank check for the use of military force. Not even the Executive has been brazen enough to request this new broad grant of authority. The language in Section 1034 is sloppy, ill-considered and poorly conceived. No hearings were held to consider its full ramifications. This Congress should be ashamed of itself for its careless and cavalier approach to a question of such grave national significance. I urge the Senate and the President to reject this provision and hope to have an opportunity to vote for a revised Defense Authorization Act that doesn't undermine the constitutional responsibilities of the Congress.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, in February of this year, I voted to support a three-month extension of the PATRIOT Act provisions in today's underlying legislation in order to give Congress time to build a consensus around necessary, common sense reform. Today, it is with great reluctance that I must stand in opposition to an additional extension of these provisions, as Congress has failed to make reforms to safeguard civil liberties. This is a missed opportunity. Senators Leahy and Paul offered a bipartisan amendment that included a sunset date for National Security Letters, enhanced oversight of PATRIOT Act authorities, and more focused standards of relevance for business record requests--changes that would provide meaningful improvements to the balance between national security and civil liberties. However, this proposal was not given a vote on the floor of the Senate. I believe there are important provisions in this bill that should be extended. However, there is also a clear need for improved oversight and privacy protections. We must not be stampeded into continuing to pass bad policy, especially when credible solutions are well within reach. I voted to give Congress time to responsibly reform these provisions. But I cannot in good conscience support a four-year extension that makes no effort to ensure that the authorities under this law are being exercised responsibly. Mr. Speaker, I have always been prepared to support a balanced PATRIOT Act that defends Americans without eroding our freedom. Unfortunately, S. 990 is not that legislation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 60th anniversary of the Montgomery County Public Libraries, a nationally recognized library system that I am proud to have located in Maryland's Eighth Congressional District. Libraries have provided service to Montgomery County residents for generations. The first private library was established in 1838, stimulating wealthy patrons, clubs, civic associations and municipalities to begin libraries for their own communities. The Montgomery County Public Libraries system began operations in 1951 with the formerly independent libraries in Four Corners, Gaithersburg, Garrett Park, Noyes, Sandy Spring, Silver Spring, and Wheaton. Today, Montgomery County has one of the leading library systems in the nation. It has grown to 21 branches, reaching every corner of the county. I am proud that these libraries, staffed by a combination of trained and dedicated professionals and volunteers, are able to serve so many people. In fact, two-thirds of the residents of Montgomery County are active library users. Libraries have changed a great deal over the decades. While books and printed materials are still vitally important, Internet access, e-books and databases are playing an increasingly important role in how libraries serve their communities. The Montgomery County Public Libraries system has adapted well over the last 60 years, and I am confident that it will continue to do so as it enriches the lives of county residents, from the youngest to the oldest, by helping to teach new skills and providing information, education and recreational materials. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me not only in recognizing the six decades of achievement by the Montgomery County Public Libraries, but of the outstanding achievements of public libraries in each congressional district throughout our Nation.