Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Education and Workforce Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller). (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, we do need to reduce the deficit in a predictable, responsible way. That will require spending cuts, and it will also require shared sacrifice. The reason that the fiscal commission said that the Republican plan was unbalanced is they try and do it all one way. History has shown that doesn't work. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, Republicans originally fought the creation of Medicare on the grounds that it was socialism. Apparently, they haven't changed their minds about that as they try and terminate it and put seniors into the private insurance market. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. The Democratic alternative says, yes, we should ask the highest income earners, the folks at the top 2 percent, to simply pay the same rate that they paid during the Clinton administration when the economy was roaring and we created 20 million jobs. That's what the choices are before us, and that's exactly the point you're making. You want to end the Medicare guarantee for seniors at the same time you want to give tax breaks to folks at the very top. That's your choice. You can make it, but we don't think that's the choice the American people want to make.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, the Medicaid program is one where the costs of health care have actually grown much more slowly compared to the growth in health care costs elsewhere. Cutting $1.4 trillion out of an already stretched program is not a recipe for helping more people. It will definitely hurt those who depend on Medicaid. You are just giving Governors a blank check with no accountability. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, yes, we do ask the big oil companies to give up their taxpayer subsidies. And yes, we do ask the very top 2 percent of income earners in the country to go back to the same tax rate they were paying during the Clinton years when the economy was roaring and 20 million jobs were created, instead of the dramatic job loss we saw between 2000 and 2008. With that, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, everyone in this Chamber loves America and everybody in this Chamber wants to preserve the dynamism of this country and American exceptionalism. We also all agree that we have to reduce our deficits in a steady and predictable way. The question is how we do that, and we have very different views of how we should do that. Later this evening and tomorrow, we will debate a Democratic alternative budget which will strengthen our economy, promote job growth, and decrease the deficit in a steady, predictable and responsible way, but the Republican budget is the wrong choice for America. I urge every American to read this budget because if you do, no amount of spin can hide the fact that this is a wrong turn for America. It is a yellow brick road for the already prosperous, but it's a dead end for the rest. Just today, we had an analysis come out from the former economic adviser to John McCain when he was running for President, Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody's Analytics, who said that the Republican plan will cost Americans 1.7 million jobs by the year 2014, with 900,000 jobs lost next year. And the Republican budget violates the warning from the bipartisan commission that we need to do the cuts and the deficit reduction in a responsible way. The cochairs of the President's fiscal commission stated that the Republican budget ``falls short of the balanced, comprehensive approach that we need for a responsible plan.'' They are absolutely right. It is not balanced; it is a totally one-sided approach to deficit reduction. Because when you sweep away all the soothing, sweet-sounding talk of reform, at its core this Republican budget is not bold. In fact, it's the same old formula of increasing tax breaks to the very wealthy in this country and to the special interests, like Big Oil, at the expense of the good of the rest of the country, except this time it's the same old plan on steroids. We all know that to govern is to choose, and the choices made in the Republican budget are wrong for America. It is not bold to give tax giveaways to the oil companies and executive board rooms while slashing investments in our kids' classrooms, in scientific research, and in critical infrastructure for this country. It is not courageous to provide additional tax breaks for millionaires while ending the Medicare guarantee for seniors and sticking seniors with the cost of the rising health care. It is not visionary to reward corporations that ship American jobs instead of products overseas while we terminate health care for tens of millions of Americans here at home. It is not brave to give Governors a blank check of Federal taxpayer money and a license to cut support for seniors and nursing homes, individuals with disabilities, and low- income kids on Medicaid. And it's not fair to give yet another tax break to the very wealthy and ask middle-income Americans to pay for it. Yet, if you read the Republican budget, those are the choices they make. We ask, where is the shared sacrifice? We have American men and women putting their lives on the line as we speak in Iraq and Afghanistan while others hide their income in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland and refuse to pay their fair share to support our Nation. That is not right. The pattern is clear: first you cut taxes for special interests and the very wealthy, and then mathematically what happens? Yeah, when you do that, the deficits go up. You drive up the deficit, and then you say, well, we've got to handle this--not by going back and asking the folks at the very top to do more, but by cutting investments for working families and violating our commitments to seniors and others. Let me turn to the Republican plan for Medicare because what the Republican plan does is it ends the Medicare guarantee. It forces seniors to go into the private insurance market and have to deal with the rising costs of health care that they face there, and the seniors have to eat that cost. And since the chairman raised this specifically in his opening statement, I would like to just take a look at this chart based on the numbers from the Congressional Budget Office--and the President did mention this in his speech yesterday. What this shows is what happens to Medicare under the Republican budget versus current Medicare and how much of the increased cost will now be shifted to seniors instead of Medicare. As you can see, compared to current Medicare, senior citizens are going to have to pay more than $6,000 on top of what they would have had to pay in the year 2022. And the problem gets worse and worse over time so that by the time you're out in the year 2030, you're talking about in the range of $11,000 more paid by seniors. Now, let me say this. One of the talking points we've heard from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle is, Don't worry, seniors, we're just giving you the same health care deal Members of Congress have. That's not true. What Members of Congress have is what's called a fair share deal agreement, just as other Federal employees do and as many employees around the country do where the risk of rising premiums is shared. So for every dollar increase in premiums, the Federal Government puts in 72 cents, thereabouts, and the Member of Congress or the Federal employee puts in the rest. But the point is, no matter how fast the costs go up, you share that risk equally. That's not what happens in the Republican plan. There's much more to talk about, but let me just say that we welcome this debate. Fundamentally, this is a debate about choices for our country, and as the bipartisan fiscal commission said, the choice made in the Republican budget is not balanced and it is not comprehensive. We agree, and we should reject this budget. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, today we are considering a piece of legislation that will roll back important gains for public health and prevention. Specifically, today's bill proposes to repeal the Prevention and Public Health Fund under the Affordable Care Act. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 75 percent of health care spending in the United States is due to chronic conditions, such as stroke, diabetes, and cancer. One of the ways to control health care spending is to invest ways to prevent disease and improving the public health of our nation. By investing in preventive health care services, we can reduce the number of people with chronic diseases while saving lives and money. Currently, funding from this program is being used by states and communities to prevent smoking, obesity, heart disease, and to increase physical activity and train the public health workforce. The Prevention and Public Health Fund presents a significant opportunity to rein in our health care spending and to promote healthy lifestyles and communities. In my judgment, repealing it will only increase preventable health care costs over time. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided bill so that we can continue to protect the health of all Americans.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.J. Res. 37, a resolution disapproving of the recent FCC net neutrality rule. The FCC's net neutrality rule is designed to ensure that the Internet remains affordable and accessible to all Americans. This goal is critical for Americans to engage the world and for the Internet to continue to be the engine of economic growth, job creation and innovation we have known it to be. To continue fulfilling this vital role in our society and economy, the Internet must be unencumbered and free from arbitrary or commercially driven disruptions. The FCC rule is tailored to achieve that objective. Mr. Speaker, the FCC's net neutrality rule is the product of years of careful analysis, deliberation and review. The question of whether the FCC has the authority to issue the rule will ultimately be decided by the courts. We should not be considering such a serious matter under the expedited procedures and closed rule before us today. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, if the majority were genuinely interested in avoiding a government shutdown, they would bring a clean, one week CR to the floor to give the current negotiations time to reach a successful conclusion. But that's not what we're being asked to vote on today. Instead, in the most cynical demonstration of bad faith, today's legislation combines funding for our troops--which every Member of this House supports, and which a clean CR would provide--with controversial cuts and ideologically extreme poison pills that the majority knows the nation doesn't want and the Senate and the President will not support. As a result, in this moment of truth, the majority is deliberately choosing to dive headlong into a government shutdown in order to pander to its Tea Party base while the rest of America yearns for honorable compromise and adult leadership. As Ranking Member of the Budget Committee, and someone who actually supported the last two CRs, I am willing to work in good faith with Members on both sides of the aisle to break the current impasse. But I will not participate in this kind of eleventh hour partisan gamesmanship when our federal government's operations are at stake.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, over forty years after the passage of the Clean Air Act, there are apparently still Members of this House who think you can't have jobs unless you have a polluted environment. Nothing could be further from the truth. Over the past 40 years, the Clean Air Act has reduced smog-producing sulfur dioxide and particulate pollution by 60% while our economy has nearly tripled. Since the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, electricity production has increased and prices have remained stable. A rigorous, peer-reviewed analysis of the Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990-2020 conducted by the EPA found that air quality improvements under the Clean Air Act will save $2 trillion and prevent at least 230,000 deaths annually. The record is clear: a healthy environment and a strong economy are not mutually exclusive. They go hand in hand. Which is why this attempt to gut the Clean Air Act by preventing EPA from regulating carbon pollution is so misplaced. Given our 40-year history with the Clean Air Act, the last thing Americans want is a bunch of politicians substituting their own ideological agenda for sound science and telling EPA it can't do its job. I urge a no vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my constituent, Stephen M. Block, who is retiring as Legislative Director of the American Civil Liberties Union for the National Capital Area. Steve has demonstrated outstanding leadership and integrity during his service with the ACLU. Throughout the past 17 years, Steve has worked tirelessly on a broad range of civil liberties matters in order to bring about a more fair and just society. One of Steve's most noteworthy accomplishments was his work on the Sexual Offenders Registration Act (Megan's Law). Steve identified numerous objectionable features that would have discriminated against the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community. Thanks to his tireless efforts, the bill that was enacted was significantly improved. For his effective and determined work on this law, Steve received the Distinguished Service Award from the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance. Steve also played an invaluable role in drafting and lobbying for the First Amendment Rights and Police Standards Act of 2004, which established a new regime for the exercise of First Amendment rights in the District. And he was integral to the passage of the statute establishing the Office of Police Complaints. ACLU Executive Director Johnny Barnes puts it well: Steve Block, in my view, cannot be replaced. A combination of intellect, wisdom, vision, grit, gnash, and tenacity, this is one gentle man with whom you don't want to tangle. Do not be deceived by his soft eyes, ready smile and grandfather- like persona, this is one tough cowboy. A former Navy officer and CIA and State Department employee, Steve reflects, in every respect, the highest honor, unblemished integrity, and flawless principle. Yet, while he is strong, he can be very sensitive. He has the capacity to address complex matters dispassionately, and at the same time demonstrate appropriate compassion. He is easy to work with, yet unafraid to stand alone. He hears the call of Ghandi and respects the legacy of King. Still, Steve happily follows, and readily leads. He is a brilliant thinker, a superb researcher, and a provocative and penetrating writer. He has been the sage on our staff, one who is always able to find a way to bring seemingly diametrically opposing forces to the same end. . . He cannot be replaced, his impact will be felt well into the future. Yet, at the same time, the imprint he leaves will serve as a guidepost for the one who comes after him. Steve will be sorely missed by the ACLU and the countless people for whom he has fought so hard, but his work for the advancement of civil liberties will continue to benefit us all for many years.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, generations of our nation's children have learned about civics and our American form of government in elementary school-- and through iconic television programs like PBS' Schoolhouse Rock, where a singing Bill explains to his youthful audience the process by which, if he's lucky, he can become a law. To this day, countless Americans still recall how the hopeful Bill gets stuck in committee before making it to the House floor, then has to start all over again in the Senate and even get signed by the President before finally becoming a law. Today, the Republican majority wants to defund public television and pass legislation saying that an action taken by a single chamber of Congress can become law. Our old friend Bill is distraught. After all these years, was he just getting a runaround? Were those pesky steps in the Senate and the White House really necessary? What is he going to tell the kids? How could he possibly have gotten it so wrong? Madam Speaker, fortunately for us, and for the school children of America, Bill did not have it wrong. Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution clearly states: ``Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States.'' Madam Speaker, the clock is ticking. The nation is waiting. The time for gimmicks and distractions and game playing is over. We have serious work to do. Let's move past this foolishness and negotiate a responsible continuing resolution for the American people.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I don't believe anyone in this House supports truly duplicative or redundant regulation--and we should all be prepared to eliminate the headache and expense of unnecessary red tape wherever we find it. But that's not what's happening here. In 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found in the National Cotton Council vs. EPA case that pesticides are pollutants whose discharge into our waterways is governed by the Clean Water Act. Today's legislation proposes to overturn that ruling and exempt pesticides from the Clean Water Act on the grounds that pesticides are already subject to registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). FIFRA registration is conditioned upon a finding that an approved pesticide ``will not generally cause unreasonable adverse affects on the environment''. While FIFRA registration weighs the costs and benefits of pesticide use nationally, it does not involve local assessments. For example, it does not consider whether a waterway is used for fishing or for swimming--or whether a waterway is already impaired. Indeed, with over 1000 waterways in the United States currently known to be impaired because of pesticide contamination, it is manifestly clear that FIFRA registration alone has not been sufficient to protect our nation's water. For that reason, while I support efficient and effective regulation, I do not believe that exempting pesticides from the Clean Water Act is the answer to making sure our citizens have access to clean water. I urge a no vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 471. Today's vote comes just weeks after House Republicans brought a Continuing Resolution to the floor to slash billions from public education programs--legislation that would cut Head Start slots, reduce critical support to thousands of schools, and decrease afterschool services at high-poverty and low-performing schools. My colleagues across the aisle argued that we simply cannot afford these investments in our nation's children. But today, the Majority brings to the floor a bill to provide private school vouchers in the District of Columbia. This bill adds $300 million to the deficit, a violation of their own new ``Cut-Go'' rule that requires offsets for all new spending. Mr. Speaker, I support investments in education. We all want our children to have the opportunity to succeed. But we should be using public funds to improve our public schools first. And it is totally hypocritical to have a vote one month to cut public school funding under the guise of deficit reduction and vote the next month to increase the deficit to support some schools over all others. I urge my colleagues oppose this bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary accomplishments of Colonel D. Gray Heppner, Jr., M.D., upon his retirement as the Deputy Director for the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, WRAIR. For over 100 years, scientists at WRAIR have expanded the frontiers of military medicine, taking the road less-travelled, from jungles, deserts, and battlefields to the laboratory and back, intent upon protecting the health of America's soldiers in harm's way. Undaunted by danger, WRAIR scientists developed the first vaccines for hepatitis and Japanese encephalitis, and the means to diagnose and treat deadly malaria. Today, on the battlefields of Asia, WRAIR's work mitigates the stress of combat, the fatigue of sustained operations and the fear of insidious Leishmaniasis, a parasitic disease spread by the bite of a sandfly. WRAIR's success in infectious diseases and military psychiatry is due to the resolve and dedication of an exceptional cadre of men and women, military and civilian. Today, I salute a distinguished alumnus of WRAIR, Colonel D. Gray Heppner, Jr., a physician-scientist who dedicated his extraordinary 20- year career at WRAIR to developing malaria vaccines and biochemical defense in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Europe, and the United States. After earning his B.A. and M.D. from the University of Virginia, and studying. Internal Medicine at the University of Minnesota, Col. Heppner worked in the lab of Professor John Eaton, researching antimalarial drugs and treating patients with tropical diseases at Joint Task Force Bravo in Honduras. When he was 34, he volunteered for active duty on the condition that he would be placed in the malaria vaccine research program at WRAIR. While serving as an Infectious Disease Officer in the Department of Immunology, Col. Heppner, then a Major, suffered from a case of acute malaria, a known side effect from working with the potential vaccine. This experience gave Col. Heppner a unique perspective on the disease and fostered in him a renewed belief in the critical need for a vaccine. From 1993-97, Col. Heppner and his family lived in Bangkok, where he served as the Chief of the Department of Immunology and Medicine for the Armed Forces Research Institute of Medicine. In this position, Col. Heppner was the principal investigator for Phase 1 and Phase 2 malaria vaccine trials on the Thai-Burmese border. In 1997, Col. Heppner returned to WRAIR to conduct pre-clinical, clinical, and field trials of malaria vaccines in Kisumu, Kenya. In 1999, Col. Heppner became Chief of WRAIR's Department of Immunology, and in 2006 was promoted to Director of WRAIR's Division of Malaria Vaccine Development. In these positions, he led teams of dedicated scientists and physicians at organizations and institutions around the world--including USAID, the Gates Foundation, the Kenya Medical Research Institute, NIH/NIAID, and the Malaria Vaccine Initiative at PATH, among others to conduct human trials of innovative malaria vaccines in the United States, Europe, and East and West Africa. During this time, he also served as a member of the Special Medical Augmentation Response Team in Doha, Kuwait, working to develop countermeasures to biological weapons. In 2008, Col. Heppner became Deputy Director of WRAIR. As an executive of the Defense Department's largest biomedical research institute, Col. Heppner was responsible for overseeing some of the most important vaccinal research in the world. In this position, he also supported WRAIR's transformation to the Department of Defense's Center of Excellence in Infectious Diseases and Psychiatry and Neurosciences. As a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Col. Heppner has advocated for vaccines to improve health, economic development, and political stability. Through his work with the Order of St. John, Col. Heppner has supported the St. John Eye Hospital in East Jerusalem in its mission to heal the blind of all faiths. Col. Heppner's work has been published in more than 100 peer-reviewed scientific publications and book chapters. There is a long-standing tradition that WRAIR officers continue to develop vaccines in their retirement. Col. Heppner will be following in that tradition as he serves as Vice President for Clinical Development at Crucell, a global biotechnology company that specializes in vaccinal development for tuberculosis, Ebola, HIV, influenza, polio, rabies, and malaria--the very diseases that threaten soldier and world health. As journalist Michael Leahy observed in his 2006 Washington Post Magazine article, ``Breaking the Cycle,'' ``Gray Heppner . . . does not give up easily on a dream.'' Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to recognize the exceptional career of Colonel D. Gray Heppner, Jr., M.D., and his extraordinary efforts in making our world a healthier and safer place.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sentiment behind this resolution. American and other NATO forces have been in Afghanistan for 10 years. That is a long haul and at times it seems that we are making little progress in achieving our objective. Like many Americans, I have serious questions about our strategy in Afghanistan. That being said, I oppose this resolution for three reasons. First, the foundational argument of this resolution is simply wrong. Section 5(c) of the War Powers Act, the provision referenced in this resolution, states that Congress may, by concurrent resolution, require the President to redeploy troops out of the line of fire if the President had never received congressional authorization for the deployment. But the Congress did authorized military operations in Afghanistan in 2001. Consequently, there is no sound legal basis for this resolution. Second, the Secretary of Defense has indicated that an ill-timed and precipitous drawdown of forces could threaten the progress and the sacrifices we have made in Afghanistan. A withdrawal of troops in 9 months, as this resolution requires, could create a total power vacuum and be a recipe for anarchy in Afghanistan. The likely result could be a bloodbath with a high probability that al Qaeda will once again establish itself in Afghanistan. Third, the President has announced that the United States will begin to redeploy its forces in Afghanistan this Summer. Last week, General Petraeus indicated that the redeployment would begin as planned. The goal is to steadily, but responsibly, withdraw U.S. and NATO forces as we accelerate the training of the Afghan National Security Forces. I will closely monitor the progress of that effort in order to ensure that we follow through as planned. Our decision to forcibly remove the Taliban regime in 2001 was the right one. The Taliban regime had allowed Afghanistan to become a safe haven for al Qaeda and a launching pad for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. The United Nations, the Atlantic Alliance and the entire international community agreed that the U.S. response was appropriate and justified. Although that decision was justified, serious questions remain about the best way forward in Afghanistan. I oppose this resolution. I will review similar future resolutions with a fresh eye based on the consideration of the situation in Afghanistan. We must see greater evidence that the Afghan National Security Forces are steadily assuming greater responsibility.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, today's bill represents the fourth piece of legislation we have considered in as many weeks to withdraw assistance from struggling homeowners, worsen the foreclosure crisis and further weaken the middle class. Specifically, H.R. 839 proposes to terminate the Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP. HAMP is a voluntary program with strict and sensible guidelines that has already provided permanent loan modifications to 600,000 American households, including over 17,000 in my home state of Maryland--and is expected to help another 30,000 Americans stay in their homes every month through the end of next year. Furthermore, HAMP's standards have now been largely adopted and standardized across the mortgage industry, thereby benefiting millions of additional homeowners outside the program itself. HAMP is not a silver bullet, and it will not help everyone. For example, it is not available for mortgages over $729,750, for second homes, for investment properties or for vacant houses. Additionally, HAMP is not for homeowners who can afford to pay their mortgages without government assistance--or for homeowners who could not afford to pay their mortgages even with government assistance. But for the estimated 1.4 million Americans who are eligible for the program, HAMP is a lifeline that can make all the difference. Mr. Chair, as we struggle to pull ourselves out of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, it makes little sense to terminate a targeted and effective foreclosure prevention program like HAMP when so many of our fellow Americans still face completely avoidable foreclosure. I urge a no vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, today's legislation is the third in a series of four announced bills explicitly intended to dismantle our nation's foreclosure prevention efforts. In this case, the initiative being terminated is the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, which has to date impacted over 100,000 properties in our nation's hardest hit areas while supporting an estimated 93,000 jobs. The program works by providing critical assistance to states, local governments and non-profit organizations to demolish or rehabilitate blighted properties, as well as establish financial assistance programs for low- and middle-income homebuyers. The resulting redevelopment of foreclosed and abandoned homes has helped stabilize communities, preserve the value of adjacent properties, and begun to restore municipalities' tax base. Mr. Chair, with seven million people having lost their homes to this housing crisis so far, another three million foreclosures expected through 2012, and unemployment still hovering around 9 percent, now is not the time to pull the rug out from under distressed homeowners and communities struggling to get back on their feet.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong opposition to HR 1076, a bill to eliminate federal funding for NPR and prohibit local public radio stations from using federal funds to acquire programming content. Mr. Speaker, National Public Radio provides 27 million Americans with access to high-quality, non-commercial programming every week. In many cases, NPR's network of 900 local public radio stations is the only way Americans can access this kind of news and information. For that reason, public opinion polls routinely show large majorities of American in support of federal funding for NPR--and that breadth of support is consistently strong across the political spectrum. So what are we doing here today? Creating jobs? Exactly the opposite. Enactment of this bill would endanger 9000 jobs at local public radio stations in communities across the country. Reducing the deficit? Hardly. CBO says this bill produces no savings. Honoring the majority's commitment to 72 hours notice and transparent governance? Mr. Speaker, this bill was introduced on Tuesday and is now being rushed to the floor 48 hours later without a single hearing. Mr. Speaker, this is not the people's business, and it is no way to run this House. It won't create a single job. It doesn't reduce the deficit. The American people haven't asked for it, and they don't want it. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, today's legislation is designed to allow the federal government to continue operating through April 8, 2011. Additionally, this three-week CR does not contain the kind of truly reckless cuts and extreme policy riders contained in H.R. 1. While this measure is clearly preferable to a government shutdown, we simply can't continue running the government on a series of short term extensions. The time has come to negotiate a long term CR that makes responsible reductions in federal spending while keeping job creation and our ongoing economic recovery on track.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, the Emergency Mortgage Relief program was created in the Dobb-Frank Act to help distressed homeowners who fall behind on their mortgage payments due to involuntary unemployment, underemployment or a medical condition. The program works by providing qualifying borrowers with a zero interest bridge loan that enables them to make their mortgage payments until they can find a job or otherwise resume paying their loan. Assistance under the program is terminated when a borrower's income is restored to 85 percent of pre-crisis levels and is limited to a maximum of 24 months or $50,000, whichever comes first. Madam Chair, this program is modeled after successful initiatives at the state level--such as the Homeowners Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program, HEMAP, in Pennsylvania, whose 85 percent success rate has helped over 45,000 homeowners stay in their homes at an average loan amount of $11,000 per borrower. With our economic recovery still gaining momentum, and unemployment hovering around 9 percent, now is not the time to terminate assistance to borrowers at risk of losing their homes through no fault of their own. Instead, we should give this program a chance to work and extend a temporary hand to those who need this assistance the most.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act of 2011'' on behalf of the President. There is no question we need to rein in spending and put our nation on the path to long-term fiscal sustainability--and at the same time invest in job growth and ensure that America remains competitive in the 21st century global economy. With that in mind, President Obama put forth a tough love budget that reduces our deficit over 10 years, while also investing in our future. This legislation will add another tool to make sure the investments we make are targeted and designed to maximize economic growth. The establishment of an expedited rescission process will help keep us on a responsible path and enforce greater fiscal discipline. An expedited rescission process allows the President to sign a spending bill into law, and at the same time propose to Congress that certain items in the bill with a budgetary cost be ``rescinded'' or cancelled. The President sends his recommendations for rescission to Congress within a short time-frame after presentment of the spending bill, and the Congress takes up the proposals on a fast track, acting in a short period after receiving the President's recommendations. The rescissions take effect only if approved by a majority in each house. Even though the current law already provides Presidential rescission authority, the law does not ensure that the Congress will vote on the President's proposed rescissions. By contrast, the measure President Obama is now proposing, and I am introducing by request, adds new procedures that will virtually guarantee a vote. In addition, this version of the bill ensures that any savings from Congressional passage of a rescission approval bill will be dedicated to deficit reduction. This proposal is another step forward on the path to greater fiscal responsibility. Other Members of Congress, including Chairman Ryan, have proposed different versions of expedited recession legislation in past years. I hope this year we can work together to find common ground in this area.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, the FHA Refinance Program proposed for termination in today's legislation is designed to provide distressed homeowners mortgage relief by using FHA loan guarantee authority to incentivize holders of existing single family loans to reduce the outstanding principal balance of their loans by at least 10% in conjunction with an FHA refinance when the principal balance of a borrower's loan is greater than the property's current value. Importantly, participating homeowners must be current on their existing loan, and all other FHA safety and soundness underwriting standards continue to apply. Any losses under the program are covered by funds already set aside by the TARP, adding no additional exposure to the FHA's capital reserves. Mr. Chair, while I am aware of--and frankly, to some extent sympathetic to--the criticism and frustration around the pace and scope of this program to date, I would also point out that it has only been operational since October of last year. Furthermore, as a purely voluntary program, its success clearly hinges on the active participation of our major loan servicers, two of whom--Wells Fargo and Ally Financial--have just recently announced their intention to let qualified borrowers take advantage of the program. Finally, with an estimated one in five homeowners currently underwater on their mortgages, it is clear to me that the housing crisis is not yet behind us. By providing struggling but credit-worthy homeowners with a reduced monthly payment and a mortgage that is more aligned with actual property values, the FHA Refinance Program can help prevent foreclosures and stabilize the housing market, which is in every American's long term interest.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce, along with my colleague, Representative Chellie Pingree, the Voluntary State Discount Prescription Drug Plan Act of 2011--a completely voluntary, commonsense way to offer prescription drugs at affordable prices to millions of Americans currently struggling without prescription drug coverage. With the enactment of the Affordable Care Act, millions of uninsured Americans will gain access to health insurance and prescription drug coverage. However, the expansion of coverage won't happen until 2014. In the meantime, high prescription drug costs will continue to be a burden for millions of Americans. This legislation would enable states, at their option, to create state discount prescription drug plans that extend Medicaid-negotiated rebates to citizens up to 300 percent of the poverty line and thereby provide discounts of roughly 40 percent to 50 million uninsured Americans--all at their local pharmacies. Just like HMOs and insurance plans in the private sector, participating states would simply leverage their purchasing power to secure better prices on behalf of their citizens. In that regard, our bill would explicitly authorize recent prescription drug affordability initiatives in states like Maryland, Maine, and Vermont by removing barriers that have to date not been embraced by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. In 2005, my home state of Maryland passed a state discount prescription drug plan law with the near unanimous support of our General Assembly and our then Republican Governor Robert Ehrlich. Unfortunately, that plan was subsequently blocked by the Bush Administration for reasons that have never been credibly explained. As a result, the broad bipartisan will of our state has been thwarted and hundreds of thousands of Marylanders have been deprived of needed access to affordable prescription drugs. In fact, according to an analysis of U.S. Census data conducted by Families USA and the Center for Policy Alternatives, an estimated half million Marylanders would become eligible for immediate prescription drug price relief under this legislation. Since these plans are created at the state level, we don't believe states should have to ask the federal government's permission in order to establish them. For that reason, our legislation makes clear that Maryland--and any other state that chooses--can set up a state discount prescription drug plan without petitioning CMS for a Section 1115 waiver. Additionally, since these plans rely on government purchasing power rather than government outlays to produce price discounts, we remove CMS's somewhat contrived requirement that states expend some undefined amount of their own money as part of these plans. Beyond modest administrative costs, it simply isn't necessary. Mr. Speaker, this legislation represents a significant opportunity to empower states to deliver prescription drug affordability to millions of our citizens who don't currently have it. I hope Congress seizes this opportunity, and I invite my colleagues' support.