Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, as I have done before, I rise today in strong support of eliminating the 1099 paperwork requirement on small businesses. In fact, I would remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the only reason we are here today--the main reason this is still an issue at all--is because House Republicans opposed eliminating this provision when the Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2010 was brought to the floor of the House in July of last year. So this issue isn't new, and it really isn't a question of whether there is bipartisan agreement to repeal this onerous requirement. There is. The question is how you pay for it. And that's where today's bill goes astray. We can and should repeal the 1099 reporting requirement. But we should not do it on the backs of middle class Americans buying health insurance for their families who are playing by the rules and complying with the law. And I would point out that the law they're complying with received a near unanimous vote of 409-2 this past December. I stand ready and willing to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find an acceptable way to pay for this repeal before the requirement takes effect in 2012. But I strongly believe that effort should focus on ending any of the myriad loopholes and unjustified subsidies in current law before imposing an effective tax increase on the middle class.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in recognition of the 50th anniversary of the Peace Corps and to honor the memory of its founder Sargent Shriver. The Peace Corps was created in 1961 to encourage Americans to travel abroad as ambassadors of good will and to engage other cultures in pursuit of world peace and mutual understanding. For 50 years, Peace Corps volunteers have helped to sow the seeds of friendship around the globe through their industry and enthusiastic service. Today, the Peace Corps endures as a living reminder of the spirit and dedication of Sargent Shriver, who was a tireless crusader for peace and justice, willing to lend a hand wherever one was needed, and building institutions like the Peace Corps that will carry on well into the future.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, today's legislation proposes to extend Federal Government operations for an additional two weeks while cutting roughly $4 billion in spending from FY 2011, if the proposed cuts are ultimately extended for the rest of the fiscal year. Democrats understand the need to get serious about our deficits and debt, but we also understand the difference between making smart, deliberate cuts to spending while maintaining targeted investments that create jobs, grow our economy and strengthen our international competitiveness. In that regard, I am especially disappointed that the majority did not make in order an amendment offered by ranking Member Dicks, which would have restored some of the education cuts in today's bill by finding the necessary savings in unused Census funds. It seems to me those are the kinds of distinctions, priorities and choices this body should be able and willing to make. Furthermore, based on our experience with H.R. 1, I am concerned that the majority is ignoring the explicit advice of two fiscal commissions and a growing chorus of bipartisan commentators warning that we must not in the guise of fiscal discipline cut so indiscriminately, so fast that we sabotage job creation and weaken our ongoing economic recovery. Madam Speaker, sooner rather than later, we need to come to a final agreement on federal spending for the rest of FY 2011. That agreement should chart a credible course towards long term fiscal sustainability while making the kinds of investments that will allow us to win the future in the 21st century.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise to join the vast majority of Americans, on both sides of the gun debate, who want a safe and sensible gun policy for their families and for the United States of America. In the aftermath of the recent tragedy in Tucson, one eminently reasonable place to start--one place where gun rights advocates and gun control advocates should be able to find common ground--is the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act (H.R. 308), introduced by my colleague Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). H.R. 308 is not about gun control. Instead, it's about commonsense ammunition control. The Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act sets aside all of the historically contentious debate around gun ownership and instead asks every American a very simple question: Is it really necessary for non-law enforcement civilians to have access to high capacity, 33-round magazines like the one Jared Lee Loughner used to shoot our colleague Gabby Giffords and his other victims in Tucson? I would submit that it is not. And I would further submit that the overwhelming majority of Americans and law abiding gun owners would agree that it is not. Consistent with that commonsense conclusion, the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act would simply ban the sale or transfer of high-capacity magazines holding more than ten rounds. Law enforcement records show that the number of high capacity magazines retrieved by police at crime scenes dropped significantly the last time this kind of restriction was in effect, and common sense tells you that smaller magazines with less bullets will lead to less fatalities and injuries during these kinds of horrific attacks. Madam Speaker, this is not a partisan issue. This is an American issue. The Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act is a commonsense step all of us can and should take to eliminate the senseless threat posed by these high capacity magazines while protecting the legitimate rights of law- abiding gun owners. I thank Congresswoman McCarthy for her leadership on this issue.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I stand today to recognize the outstanding career and accomplishments of my constituent, David W. Gorman. A Vietnam veteran, Mr. Gorman will be remembered as one of the premiere veterans' advocates in American history. On July 1, 2011, he will be retiring as the Executive Director of National Service and Legislative Headquarters of the Disabled American Veterans after four decades of dedicated service. Mr. Gorman entered the U.S. Army in 1969 and served in the famed ``Sky Soldiers'' of the 173rd Airborne Brigade during the Vietnam War. After sustaining severe combat injuries that required the amputation of both legs, Mr. Gorman dedicated himself to improving the treatment and welfare of America's veterans and joined the Disabled American Veterans organization. Mr. Gorman, a life member of the DAV's National Amputation Chapter 76 and Chapter 4, in Wheaton, Maryland, began his professional career with the DAV as a National Service Officer at the Boston National Service Office in 1971. In the years that followed, Mr. Gorman became a venerable ally of American veterans, representing their claims before the Veterans Administration Board of Veterans Appeals. He earned a reputation as one of the nation's foremost experts regarding the VA's complex array of services and programs. Indeed, the DAV's key legislative accomplishments of recent years are largely due to the expertise and diligence of Mr. Gorman and his team. In 1995, Mr. Gorman was appointed Executive Director of National Service and Legislative Headquarters, a position he has held for over 15 years. As Executive Director, he was the DAV's principal representative and spokesman before Congress, the White House, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. His legacy includes his efforts to reform veterans' health care and his contributions to the enactment of the Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act of 2009 and the Caregiver and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Mr. Gorman on his outstanding accomplishments and thank him for his devoted service to our country and our veterans. I wish him a rewarding and enjoyable retirement with his wife, Paula, his five children and six grandchildren.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor this week's recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, our nation's highest civilian honor. All of the honorees have led extraordinary lives and made enormous contributions in their fields. They come from a range of backgrounds--arts, sports, public service--and have enriched our nation and improved our world. I particularly want to recognize my friend, Congressman John Lewis, who received this honor. John has given a lifetime of service to this nation, from his leadership in the Civil Rights Movement to his 26 years as the ``Conscience of the Congress.'' A few years ago, I had the privilege to join John on a trip to Alabama, where we retraced the steps of the courageous civil rights activists who changed the face of America. John's passion has never wavered and he remains a voice for the voiceless--strongly advocating for opportunity for all Americans. I congratulate him on this much-deserved honor and look forward to working with him for many years to come.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of this amendment. The Continuing Resolution on the floor today makes irresponsible and dangerous cuts in transportation and development, doing harm to a construction sector already facing 20 percent unemployment and delaying the investments needed to bring our nation's infrastructure into a state of good repair. These cuts, which are opposed by our business community, come with a price--lost productivity, less safety, and a higher cost for repairs later as our system continues to deteriorate. Eliminating funding for DC Metro is just one example of the Republicans' penny-wise, pound-foolish approach to deficit reduction. The Federal Government relies on the Metro system to bring thousands of employees to work every day--to the Pentagon, to the Department of Homeland Security, to all the Federal agencies that help provide services to the American people. More than half of Metrorail stations serve Federal facilities. When the Metro does not work, the government cannot work. This $150 million investment makes the capital improvements that are necessary to make the system safe and reliable. And every dollar is matched by our local partners in Maryland, DC, and Virginia. These funds are budgeted to make critical safety improvements, replace aging rail cars, and rebuild miles of track. Without them, we will see reduced reliability and degraded customer service. Mr. Chair, short-sighted cuts to infrastructure eliminate home-grown jobs and delay critical improvements that would make transportation safer and more efficient. If we do not make these investments now, we will certainly pay more later. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and oppose these reckless, job-killing cuts to critical infrastructure programs.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague. Another day on a bill that will not create one single job in the United States of America; in fact, a bill that will cost thousands of Americans their jobs. The response just the other day from our Republican colleagues: So be it. Now we have an amendment before us to strip away critical patient protections for consumers, for our constituents. This is an insurance industry dream amendment. We heard from our colleagues they wanted to listen to the American people. They have not had one hearing, not one, to listen to the people around this country who were already benefiting from this bill. The provisions to ensure that kids with diabetes, leukemia, asthma, are not discriminated against by the insurance industry any more, not one mom was heard from. Provisions to make sure that our constituents aren't denied their coverage when they need it the most. There are thousands of Americans out there already benefiting from that. Didn't listen to one of them. And now under the guise of trying to save the taxpayer money, they are offering an amendment that, according to the independent, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, will increase the deficit over the next 10 years by $230 billion. And when it's fully implemented, the bill, and you strip it away, it will add $1.4 trillion to the deficit. I just urge my colleagues to read the letter from January of this year from the head of the CBO to the Speaker of the House. It's right in there, plain and simple. We had a hearing in the Budget Committee just the other day. I hope your colleagues on the Budget Committee may have talked to you about it because the head of CBO was before the committee and Members on the Republican side. Surely you must have arrived at this deficit number through double counting. The head of CBO said very plainly there is no double counting. Read the lips of CBO. This adds $230 billion to the deficit over 10 years, $1.4 trillion over the next 20 years. So don't come to the floor here and pretend that by enacting this amendment it's part of an effort to save taxpayer dollars. This will add more red ink to this Nation's credit card, the same kind of red ink that we saw being added over the years and years and years of the prior administration. We are trying to turn the corner on that. But all this does is add more. The cost is not just in terms of higher deficits; the costs are to the people throughout this country who are going to lose the important protections that this bill has provided them. Shame on this House for spending time doing this rather than focusing on jobs and getting this economy moving.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, the Chesapeake Bay is a natural and national treasure. It is the largest estuary in the United States of America. The health of the Chesapeake Bay is under constant assault from all sources of pollution: urban runoff, farm runoff, storm water runoff. We have been working for years and years, in fact decades, to try and clean up the bay, and it has been like running in place because, every time we take action, more pollution flows into the bay. That's why, under the Obama administration, they've taken important action to try and finally get ahead of the curve and restore the health of the bay. Will Baker, who is the President of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, described the approach of the Obama administration as something that may well represent the bay's best and last chance for restoration. As Mr. Moran pointed out, if we don't do that, the watermen, the sports fishermen, and the tourist industry will be badly hurt. I'm not sure that the gentleman from Virginia, who introduced this amendment, recognizes the impact it might have on farmers, because none of the funds in this act, including from EPA and the Department of Agriculture, may be used for a number of purposes, including watershed implementation plans for the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Now, we spoke to USDA's general counsel. Their office told us that this could well deprive farmers of some of their valuable agricultural conservation funds. The last I checked, Maryland received in fiscal year 2009 $28 million. In the State of Virginia, the farmers received about $16 million to help them with their conservation efforts because, as good stewards of the land, they have been part of the team effort to protect the Chesapeake Bay. As Mr. Moran said, if you take these funds away, you are denying them some of the tools they have effectively used. So this won't only hurt the watermen and the sports fishermen; it is also going to hurt the farmers; and collectively it is going to hurt the largest estuary in the United States. Let's work to save the bay, not undermine its health.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Kline amendment, which seeks to short circuit the Department of Education's ongoing rulemaking process regarding the Higher Education Act's ``gainful employment'' requirement for postsecondary programs. Private sector colleges and universities serve 2.8 million students and receive $32.5 billion in federal student aid. Even more students are enrolled in career training programs at non-profit colleges. These training programs are an important part of our education system and provide a valuable service, particularly to non-traditional students. Unfortunately, a number of investigations have recently cast light on bad actors in the for-profit sector that have been using deceptive recruiting tactics and inflated job placement and completion rates. All stakeholders in this process--from students seeking a quality education, to citizens insisting their tax dollars are spent responsibly, to the many legitimate programs--have an interest in seeing these abuses stopped. The Department of Education began a process to define ``gainful employment'' in 2009 and released a proposed rule in July 2010. The plan has sparked intense debate, with more than 90,000 comments, and I urge the Department to continue to engage with all stakeholders and address legitimate concerns as they refine the rule. However, this amendment would stop the process altogether, ending the dialogue for the rest of the fiscal year. I am also concerned that this amendment would bar enforcement of new rules that require for-profit schools and non-degree programs to disclose basic program information, like graduation rates, program costs, and median loan debt for graduates, to prospective applicants. Mr. Chair, if the final rule from the Department of Education does not meet the goal of rooting out bad actors while preserving access to high quality postsecondary education, this body should--and I believe will--step in and make changes. But the Department is attempting to address an important issue: stopping taxpayer funding to sub-par programs that leave students nowhere but deeper in debt. Congress should not cut off that process midway through.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, although I support Secretary Gates' call to terminate the Expeditionary Force Vehicle (EFV), I must unfortunately oppose the Woolsey amendment because it also seeks to cancel the Osprey program, whose termination I do not support. The EFV is clearly not a wise use of American tax dollars. It is 14 years behind schedule and estimated to cost 168 percent more than originally estimated. Because of these realities, along with the evolving nature of naval warfare, Secretary Gates, the Secretary of the Navy and the Commandant of the Marine Corps have all recommended that it be terminated--and it was not included in President Obama's FY 12 Budget. By contrast, after overcoming a number of operational and cost concerns, the Osprey has become a top priority for the Marine Corps and does enjoy command support. If I could split this amendment into two separate votes, I would do so. Since I cannot, I will oppose it and continue to pursue a deliberate, program by program approach to finding needed savings in our defense budget.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We've heard a lot about the Supreme Court decision, Citizens United, and we may agree with that decision or disagree with that decision. But the fact of the matter is that's the law of the land. This amendment does not try to overturn that decision. This amendment is perfectly consistent with that decision. It simply says that when you are spending the money, expending the money, you have to disclose to voters that you're trying to influence their vote. It's the right to know. Now because we are dealing with an appropriations bill, a government spending bill, we can't address all of the entities out there in the country that may be trying to spend money to influence elections.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Not at this moment. I've got my 5 minutes and I'm going to use them, but I thank you. What we're saying in this bill is that if we're really trying to save the taxpayers some money, which we should all be trying to do, we should try to curb the influence of the special interests who spend a lot of money hiring lobbyists to influence us and spend money in campaigns trying to influence the outcome of elections. Now just in the last couple of days, we've had a lot of votes on some issues that could affect Federal Government contractors in a very big way. Just yesterday, we had a vote on something dealing with a big military contract. So here's my question. That contractor, the contractor that got taxpayer money or the one that didn't, could say, Look, I want to reward the folks that supported me. I'm going to run a bunch of TV ads in their campaign supporting them; say thank you, I want to get you reelected. Or they may say to the folks who voted against that Federal Government contract, hey, I want to make sure that person doesn't come back here because they may vote against my contract again, they may want to save the taxpayer some money, but we're going to spend some of our money--a Federal contractor, contractor getting taxpayer dollars--we're going to spend some of our money to try and unelect that person who voted against our contract. This amendment is really simple and it would have a direct impact on all the conversations we're having. If you're a Federal Government contractor, if you're getting taxpayer money and you decide to run political advertisement in people's campaign to try and reward those who supported you or punish those that didn't, you at least have to disclose that information to the voters. You at least have to say who you are and how much you're going to be spending. And it seems to me if we're genuinely interested in saving taxpayers' dollars, which we all should be, we should give the taxpayer, whose dollars are going to those contractors, the right to know whether those contractors are turning around and spending money in these elections. So if we're ever going to really work to try and curb those interests, those special interests that work so hard to try and get special benefits out of the Federal Government, we should at the very least say, ``Come clean with the taxpayers.'' This is not an infringement in any way on free speech. They can still run an ad in anyone's district and they can say whatever they want to the voters; no restrictions whatsoever. All we're saying is when you do that, let the taxpayers know. After all, the taxpayers have helped provide the funds for your contract. At the very least, you should tell the taxpayer, the voter, who you are that's spending money to try and influence the outcome of an election. It seems to me that that's the very least we can do to try and provide more accountability and more transparency. We keep hearing from everybody, that's what we want--more transparency. Okay, let's let the voters know. Why wouldn't you want to let the voters know? Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by saying, this is a very simple amendment. If you're a Federal Government contractor, you're getting taxpayer dollars, you decide to get engaged in the political process as is your right; and after the Citizens United, you can get directly involved expending money in those campaigns. You can do that and say what you want. Just tell the taxpayer who you are and what you're spending to try and influence their vote. I hope that we will adopt this amendment, and I thank the gentlelady from California (Ms. Eshoo) for offering it.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize my constituent David Greenbaum as he celebrates his 100th birthday. Like many Jews who escaped Europe on the eve of the Holocaust, Mr. Greenbaum can attribute his survival to a combination of keen perception, perseverance, luck, and the compassion of strangers. His extraordinary journey began in Starachowice, Poland in 1939 as Hitler invaded Poland. At the time, Mr. Greenbaum was 28 years old and living with his mother and three younger siblings. His father had passed away two years earlier. With German planes overhead bombing nearby towns, the Greenbaum family left their home and took refuge in the nearby countryside on a farm of a family friend. As German soldiers approached, Mr. Greenbaum left his family and headed north-east with a deserter from the Polish Army. The two were shortly joined by others seeking to avoid German capture. The group walked without rest on unfamiliar roads to unknown destinations. Mr. Greenbaum walked for 1,100 miles, arriving in Vilnius, Lithuania. Granted shelter for the night by a local tailor, Mr. Greenbaum had a chance meeting with his brother Zack, who had joined the Polish Army. The two then parted, with David Greenbaum planning to continue on to Kaunas (then the capital of Lithuania) in order to ultimately join their sister, Diana, in Washington, D.C. David Greenbaum may not have survived the Nazi invasion were it not for the assistance of the Jewish social service organization. While in Kaunas, Mr. Greenbaum was informed by the organization that all Jewish refugees were to be jailed. With its help, he obtained a visa to the U.S. Visa in hand, he begged in the streets for money in order to accumulate the $225 he needed to travel by train to Moscow and then Vladivostok, Russia, a port on the Pacific Ocean. By feigning injury, Mr. Greenbaum evaded the scrutiny of undercover agents patrolling the train. Once he reached his destination, Mr. Greenbaum purchased a ticket to Japan with money again provided by a Jewish social service organization. On December 13, 1940, Mr. Greenbaum boarded The Cleveland, a ship sent to Japan by President Roosevelt, for a trans- Pacific journey to San Francisco. One year after his journey began, Mr. Greenbaum arrived in Washington, D.C., where he quickly sought to integrate himself into his new surroundings. After completing English lessons, Mr. Greenbaum began work at Berman's, a clothier located in the Pentagon. Mr. Greenbaum learned the trade and became known as an outstanding tailor. In fact, Mr. Greenbaum was chosen to be the personal tailor of Vice President Hubert Humphrey. Mr. Greenbaum will be celebrating his 100th birthday on February 18, 2011. With Pearl, his wife of 63 years, he shares the joy of two children, six grandchildren and two great-grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to celebrate David Greenbaum's 100th birthday and wish him a year of health and happiness.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, we're fortunate that the new Republican majority brought their proposal before this Congress the day after President Obama submitted his budget plan for next year. We are fortunate because it gives the American people the opportunity to compare very different approaches. The President's budget is tough but it is responsible. It's tough because it cuts non-security discretionary spending by $400 billion over the next decade to the lowest share of the economy since the Eisenhower administration. It's responsible because it steadily reduces the deficit while making targeted investments in areas like education, clean energy, infrastructure, and scientific innovation--investments that will strengthen our economy and make sure America wins the future in a competitive global marketplace. One of those key areas of investment the President has proposed is infrastructure. The American Society of Civil Engineers--hardly a left- wing group--issued a report card on the state of America's deteriorating infrastructure. They gave us practically failing grades-- mostly Ds and D-minuses--for the state of our roads, schools, transit, and drinking water--not grades that we would want our kids to bring home from school. So I'm very pleased that the President has announced that he wants to make critical investments in this area. As reported yesterday in USA Today, using the analysis of the Associated General Contractors--again, not a liberal group--his plan could create about 5.4 million construction jobs and 10 million more jobs in related industries in the broader economy. At a time when the construction industry is facing over 20 percent unemployment, those are exactly the kinds of smart investments that will help grow our economy. This proposal and this investment is supported by a diverse range of groups, from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the AFL-CIO. The President's tough and balanced approach stands in stark contrast to the proposal we're seeing on the floor today. The proposal that we're talking about today, with very immediate and deep cuts, is a reckless approach when too many families are struggling to make ends meet, and it will do virtually nothing to address our long-term structural deficit. The Economic Policy Institute found that the proposal before this House today would likely put 800,000 Americans out of work. Indeed, that's why the bipartisan commission charged with reducing our deficits and debt, along with the bipartisan Domenici-Rivlin Commission, recommended against taking deep, immediate cuts. Yes, they're coming together now to put together a plan to reduce the deficit in a stable way. No, to immediate deep cuts that could hurt a very fragile economy. Let me read you exactly what the bipartisan commission on deficit and debts reduction said. ``In order to avoid shocking the fragile economy, the Commission recommends waiting until 2012 to begin enacting programmatic spending cuts.'' In other words, below the CR level. And that's exactly what the President's budget does. Why should we cut essential investments in Head Start and in education rather than eliminate huge taxpayer subsidies to the oil industry? In fact, just today, the GAO came out with a report talking about the huge bonanza oil companies are getting for lack of royalty payments on many of their lands. Just yesterday, in the Budget Committee, we had the OMB director, Jack Lew, testify. Mr. Lew reminded us that the last time he had testified before the Budget Committee was when he had served as the OMB Director for President Clinton. When he left office, he left the country with a $45.6 trillion surplus and an economy that during that 8-year period added 20.8 million private sector jobs. Unfortunately, we know the end of the movie. Those huge surpluses were squandered. The previous administration to this one, the Bush administration, cut taxes for the very wealthy. And, through a number of other policy actions, turned a $5.6 trillion surplus into a sea of deficits. By the end of that 8-year period, 653,000 private sector jobs were eliminated. Mr. Chairman, I hope we will oppose this approach and accept the approach the President has presented.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Robert A. Dennis, Assistant Director for Macroeconomic Analysis of the Congressional Budget Office, upon his retirement after 32 years of outstanding service to CB0 and the Congress. Bob has been instrumental in providing the Congress with analyses of macroeconomic issues throughout his exceptional career at CBO. His extraordinary analytical skills and leadership ability were recognized early in his CB0 career. While serving in his first position as a Principal Analyst in the Macroeconomic Analysis Division during the early 1980s, Mr. Dennis received a CBO Director's Award in recognition of outstanding performance. He was later promoted to the position of Deputy Assistant Director of the Macroeconomic Analysis Division in 1988 and to the position of Assistant Director of the Division in 1992, the position he has held until his retirement at the end of February, 2011. Bob's versatility and skill as an economist are evident in the Division's high-quality and prescient work on an extraordinarily diverse range of issues. Those issues included, for example, the macroeconomic effects of the savings and loan crisis, possible terrorist disruptions of U.S. ports, flu epidemics, trade agreements, financial crises, housing policies, economic stimulus policies, changes in tax policy, and climate policy, as well as the determinants of long- term economic growth. Bob has been central to the development of the procedures the Macroeconomic Analysis Division has used to prepare the economic outlook for the budget baseline. He even wrote the computer software that the Division used for many years to analyze current economic developments and prepare charts for CBO publications. Bob has performed his various duties within the Congressional Budget Office with objectivity, non-partisanship, and a high level of professionalism. I commend him for his many years of dedicated, faithful, and exemplary service to the United States and the Congress. This nation is fortunate enough indeed to have outstanding and dedicated public servants like Bob Dennis at CBO. Bob's presence will be missed but his legacy of commitment and superlative service will carry on.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 514, a limited bill to extend three Patriot Act counterterrorism authorities scheduled to expire at the end of this month through December of this year. I do so to ensure our intelligence and law enforcement communities continue to have the tools they need to protect American citizens while Congress works to reform this currently flawed law. The authorities being extended in today's legislation include Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Act, also known as the ``lone wolf'' amendment, which allows surveillance of non- citizens engaged in international terrorism apart from identified terrorist groups; Section 206 of Patriot Act, which permits roving surveillance of terrorism suspects who use multiple communication devices to thwart detection; and Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which compels production of business records and other tangible items upon the approval of the FISA court. Of these three authorities, the current construction of the Section 215 ``tangible items'' authority is the most problematic. Specifically, the ``relevance'' standard that must be met under this authority is too weak. Recipients of Section 215 orders are required to wait a year before challenging a nondisclosure order. And the government can use secret evidence to oppose judicial challenges to a Section 215 order. I believe Section 215 and other Patriot Act authorities should be reformed along the lines of Senator Patrick Leahy's USA Patriot Act Sunset Extension Act. Additionally, the Justice Department and Congress must exercise more oversight over the application of these authorities to ensure that they are being exercised responsibly. It is critically important that, in our effort to defend the liberties that Americans cherish, we not enact measures that erode the very freedoms we seek to protect.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the outstanding achievements of my constituent, Clifford M. Kendall. On February 9, 2011, Mr. Kendall will be receiving the Technology Council of Maryland's Lifetime Achievement Award. This recognition is richly deserved. Cliff Kendall is a widely-respected business leader and entrepreneur whose accomplishments have benefitted our local community and our Nation. The first member of his family to graduate from college, Cliff earned a B.A. from the University of Maryland. Following graduation, he received an ROTC commission and served as a contracting officer in the U.S. Air Force. After earning an M.B.A. from the George Washington University, Cliff held positions at the Washington Gas and Light Company, American University, Washington University in St. Louis, and the consulting firm of Booz, Allen, & Hamilton, Inc. In 1968, Cliff Kendall co-founded Computer Data Systems, Inc. (CDSI), now one of the nation's largest government contractors for information technology services and consulting. Serving as the company's President, CEO, and Chairman, Cliff helped CDSI become a company known for its outstanding service to Federal, State, and local government agencies and for its loyalty to its employees. Cliff is currently the Chairman of the Board of VSE Corporation, and has served on the Boards of i360technology, Inc. and Burdeshaw Associates, Ltd. He has also served as Chairman of the Board of On-Site Sourcing, Inc., and on the Boards of Washington Real Estate Trust and Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. An inductee to the Washington Business Hall of Fame, Cliff Kendall has drawn admiration and respect from his peers and competitors alike. He has received numerous honors for his accomplishments in the business and education communities. He is Past Chairman of the Technology Council of Maryland, the Montgomery/Prince George's County CEO Business Roundtable, and the Greater Washington Board of Trade, and the President of the Montgomery County Education Connection. He has also served on the Board of the Maryland Economic Development Commission and the Suburban Maryland High Technology Council. Cliff Kendall has dedicated substantial effort to ensuring access to higher education. He is currently serving in his eighth year as Chairman of the Board of Regents for the University System of Maryland and has also served on the Board of Directors for the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Cliff led the effort to build a new building for the George Washington University School of Business and continues to serve on the GWU Business School Advisory Board. He and his wife Camille created the Cliff and Camille Kendall Foundation, which funds scholarships to students studying Computer, Mathematical, and Physical Sciences at the University of Maryland and Montgomery College. Cliff also has taught the capstone course for Johns Hopkins University's M.B.A. program as an adjunct professor. In addition to his leadership and many contributions to business and higher education, Cliff Kendall has been deeply involved with non- profit organizations. He is the Founding Chair of the Community Foundation of Montgomery County and has been active with Lighthouse for the Blind and the Greater Washington Salvation Army. On a personal note, I have benefitted greatly from Cliff's sage advice on a range of issues over the years. He was actively engaged in our debates in Annapolis over the future of higher education in Maryland. He has also been a strong advocate for making sure Maryland is at the cutting-edge of the high-technology economy. I am very grateful for all he has done for our community. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to honor Clifford Kendall and his extraordinary contributions to our country.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the exemplary career of one of my constituents, Martin D. Fink, who recently retired after working for the United States Navy for 52 years. As a research and development engineer, Mr. Fink helped improve existing technologies and develop new capabilities that increased the safety, functionality, and efficiency of various Navy vessels. Mr. Fink's fine work earned him the Meritorious Civilian Service Award (1990) and the Superior Civilian Service Award (1994), the second highest civilian award that the Department of the Navy can bestow. Over the course of his career, Mr. Fink patented several inventions for use by the Navy, including a ``Method for quantifying parameters for a ship roll simulation system'' (2004), a ``Vertical motion compensation for a crane's load'' (2003), and an ``Integrated and automated control of a crane's rider tagline system'' (2000). Mr. Fink retired on December 31, 2010. In 1958, Mr. Fink began his work for the Navy while still in school through a cooperative education program at the David Taylor Model Basin-Naval Ship Research and Development Center in Bethesda, Maryland. Mr. Fink earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Aerospace Engineering from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in 1963 and a Master of Science degree in Engineering Administration from The George Washington University in 1972. During his 18 years of service at Carderock, he worked on developing the performance and acquisition requirements and documentation for the ground-breaking JEFF(A) and JEFF(B) Amphibious Assault Landing Craft (AALC) air cushion vehicle test craft and was an integration engineer for the two design fabrication contracts. In 1976 Mr. Fink transferred to the Naval Coastal Systems Center (NCSC) in Panama City, Florida to continue his work on the AALC project and to help establish the AALC Experimental Trials Unit. Mr. Fink's work was critical to the development of the acquisition documentation for the current Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC), which evolved out of the AALC project and currently provides the Navy's rapid deployment capabilities for troops and equipment. In 1981 Mr. Fink was selected to serve as manager of the Merchant Ship Naval Augmentation Program/Strategic Sealift Research and Development program at the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), then in Arlington, Virginia. While there, he improved the military utility of commercial ships in support of Naval fleet requirements by undertaking the acquisition, integration and installation of more modern Navy and commercial equipment on government-owned merchant ships. From 1992- 2000, Mr. Fink worked in the Strategic Sealift Program Office in NAVSEA, where he oversaw, among other projects, the development and acquisition of new hardware to expand and improve naval sealift capacity. In 2000 Mr. Fink joined the Program Executive Office, Ships as the Acquisition Program Manager for the development of the Maritime Prepositioning Force. From 2007 until his retirement, Mr. Fink served as Principal Assistant Program Manager for Research and Development/ Small Business Innovation Research and Future Platforms. Martin Fink has made numerous substantial contributions to the Department of the Navy over his 52 years of diligent and innovative service. From aiding in the design, development, and testing of military vehicles such as the Landing Craft Air Cushion, the development of shipboard cargo handling and seabased operational logistics support systems, Mr. Fink has helped improve existing capabilities and provide the Navy with vital new tools to support our sailors and marines. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize the long and productive career of Martin D. Fink and the contributions he has made to our Navy and extend our gratitude and appreciation to him for his outstanding service to our country.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this measure, which, along with the Supreme Court's radical decision in Citizens United, takes our Nation's campaign finance system in precisely the wrong direction: less transparency and less information for the voters. Americans from across the political spectrum--Democrats, Republicans, Independents--want less special interest money in politics, not more. They want clean, transparent, and competitive elections; and campaigns where candidates--those of us in this room and Presidential candidates--rise and fall based on the quality of their ideas, the strength of their arguments, and their ability to attract support from the voters that they seek to represent. What they don't want are campaigns decided by how much secret money flows into an election from secret outside groups. And they will no longer tolerate, I believe, those politicians turning around and saying to those citizens: You have no right to know who is paying for what in our political campaigns; you have no right to know who is paying for those TV advertisements you're watching. Let's remember what we are talking about here. The current Presidential financing system that this bill would eliminate arose from public outrage in the post-Watergate period. Rather than Presidential candidates trafficking in secret slush funds, our Nation decided that our democracy would be better served by a system of public disclosure, contribution limits, and emphasis on smaller-dollar contributions matched by the Presidential financing fund. The system is voluntary, one line on our Tax Code, not complicated; and while not perfect, for most of its 36 years in existence, it has served this Nation well. Candidates from across the political spectrum, from Ronald Reagan to Jesse Jackson, have voluntarily participated in the Presidential financing system. As my colleague on the other side of the aisle mentioned there is no doubt that the current law needs to be modernized; it needs to be fixed. We saw that in the last Presidential election. But rather than throw out something that has served the country and the electorate well for 36 years, let's fix it. And the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) and I and others have introduced legislation to do exactly that. So rather than shielding an avalanche of unlimited special interest money from public view, we should shine a light on it. We should do it by modernizing the Presidential system, and we should also pass the DISCLOSE Act, which we could have brought up and voted on except for the previous question was just defeated. Mr. Chairman, at the end of the day, our Nation's democracy doesn't belong to Presidents or Members of Congress; it belongs to the voters who send us here, and we have a solemn responsibility to safeguard it on their behalf and protect it for future generations from the lessons in corruption in history. Let's mend it. Let's fix it. Let's not throw it out.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague and thank him for offering this motion because it's very simple. What this does is allow the American public to finally know who is funding the political ads that they're watching financed by a lot of these shadowy groups. Mr. Speaker, earlier today our Republican colleagues rejected the idea of having broad transparency by adopting the DISCLOSE Act. What this does is target it in one very important area, an area that the American public deserves to know, and that is when commercials, TV commercials, are paid for by special interests, Big Money special interests, including foreign corporations, and corporations that are owned or controlled by foreign governments, whether they be China, Iran, Venezuela, whoever it may be, that the American public has a right to know who is paying for those ads. It's simple, it's transparent, and in fact our Republican colleagues even recently said they were in favor of more transparency. Speaker Boehner said on Meet the Press, and I quote: ``I think what we ought to do is we ought to have full disclosure, full disclosure of all the money we raise and how it is spent. I think sunlight is the best disinfectant.'' I would hope that would also be true about foreign- controlled corporations trying to secretly finance ads in this country. Majority Leader Cantor told Newsweek, and I quote: ``Anything that moves us back toward the notion of transparency, real-time reporting of donations and contributions would be helpful toward restoring confidence of the voters.'' Mr. Speaker, this motion is very simple. Let's let the American public know when you have these Big Money special interests, including foreign-controlled corporations, spending this money to influence their vote. Eighty percent of the American people, Democrats, Republicans, and independents, say they want to know. A vote against this motion is a vote to keep the American public in the dark, to continue to allow those shadowy groups, including those controlled by foreign interests, to continue to try and influence the elections in this country without telling a single person. That's wrong. It violates the kind of pledge towards transparency and greater accountability that we heard a lot in this last election. So I urge my colleagues to act on a bipartisan basis to simply give the public the right to know when those kinds of organizations, including foreign-controlled corporations, are spending gobs of money on TV and not telling the American people who they are or who is financing them.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. And my friend from Massachusetts talked about this earlier, whether it is $100 billion or $80 billion or $20 billion, those numbers all have consequences because on the other side of the aisle when we say, well, are you going to be cutting research to find cures and treatments for cancer or diabetes, no, we're not going to cut that. Are you going to cut the FBI agents involved in antiterrorism efforts? No, we would never want to cut that. What are you going to cut? And the magnitude of those cuts and the negative impact on jobs and the economy will be determined by what, by the number in this bill, a number that we don't get to vote on that you are giving the chairman of the Budget Committee sole authority to pick out of a hat.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague. Here we are a day later. Yesterday we asked our colleagues, what's the number going to be? What's going to be the spending ceiling for this Congress and for the United States Government? They didn't have it yesterday, and we don't yet have it today. It's a budget resolution without a budget number. Now we've heard a lot of talk about what happened last year. What this budget resolution relates to is 2011. In fact, this body voted last year on a Budget Enforcement Act. I have it right here in my hand. And it set budget ceilings. It had a real number. Some people voted for it, some people voted against it, but this body did what it always does when it makes decisions of this magnitude. We took accountability for it. Now you have a resolution that violates the pledge of transparency because it doesn't have a single number in it, and it violates the pledge of accountability because you're asking every other Member of this body to contract out his or her vote to one person. Now I have great respect for the chairman of the Budget Committee. And I, too, congratulate him on being selected to give the response to the State of the Union address. This isn't about a particular individual. It's about all of us taking responsibility for a major decision. And what this resolution does is contracts out that responsibility. It doesn't have a number. We don't know if it's going to be $100 billion. We don't know if it's going to be $80 billion. We don't know if it's going to be $40 billion. We don't know if it's going to be the number that the Republican Study Committee wants, which the majority leader said good things about. We don't know. What we do know is this, that the bipartisan deficit and debt reduction commission told us two things: Number one, we need to act now to put this country on a fiscally sustainable path, and we should do that by working together. They also said another thing, that deep immediate cuts beyond what had been put in place and recommended by the fiscal commission would hurt the economy when it's in a very fragile state and risk throwing more Americans out of work. That would be a terrible mistake. And yet our colleagues want us to make a decision to vote on this without telling us what the number is. So when we asked what the number was, they said, we're waiting for the Congressional Budget Office. When will the Congressional Budget Office have its numbers? Tomorrow, 24 hours from now. Then we can do the right thing, we can see what the cuts will be, and we can make a decision as a body taking responsibility for this decision. Why is it we are not waiting 24 hours? Well it's pretty obvious. A little later today, the President of the United States will be here to deliver the State of the Union address, and instead of being serious about this number, they want to deliver a press release. That is what this is about without a number. Otherwise we would wait 24 hours and our friends could tell us what that number would be. You are asking this body to buy a pig in a poke. And the reason it is so serious is that numbers have consequences.