Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire as to how much time remains.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear this attack on the CBO numbers that came out when many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle just 9 months ago, when the CBO was reporting deficit numbers and the cost of the bill, were singing CBO's high praises. Now let's look at some of the items that were just mentioned. Let's look at the doctor fix payment. Let us look at the SGR. We know that has been an issue that has been with this House for years and years. It has nothing to do with the health insurance reform bill that was signed by the President. We are going to have to deal with that issue whether we had health insurance reform or didn't have health insurance reform. And, Mr. Speaker, they know that. We also heard that we front-loaded the revenue in this bill and disguised the out-year costs. If that were the case, how is it possible that CBO would say that it actually reduces the deficit by more in the second 10 years than in the first 10 years? The fact of the matter is this bill will increase Social Security revenue as employers provide more of their compensation in the form of wages that are subject to payroll taxes. Double counting is not the issue. The fact is it reduces the deficit, and CBO says that. Now, CBO is the independent referee that we use in this body. They are like the guy on the football field, the referee, who calls the plays, calls when there are penalties and no penalties. Sometimes we like the call and sometimes we don't. But it is an unprecedented step to say that we are going to totally ignore the decisions and judgment of the independent CBO and we are going to replace that with our judgment for the purposes of deficit reduction calculations in legislation that goes to reducing our debt. That is a recipe for budget anarchy. It is a recipe for fiscal chaos. We should not go down that road. The CBO has been very clear that the fiscally responsible thing to do is to move forward with the law in its place. We obviously can fix things as they come up that need to be addressed, specific items. But to repeal this wholesale will--the folks that we rely on as the independent, nonpartisan judges here say that repealing this bill as our colleagues are proposing to do will add $1.4 trillion to the deficit over 20 years. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. And let's make sure that as we do this, we tackle the deficit and the debt. I listened to my colleague talk about the debt, but we all know that the independent, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office in a letter to Speaker Boehner dated January 6, 2011, indicated that repealing this bill will increase the deficit by over $200 billion over the first 10 years and by another $1.2 trillion over the second 10 years. Our colleagues have criticized those findings, but they're the same people who they applauded when the numbers came back their way. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. May I inquire, Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I notice the gentleman mentioned CBO. What CBO said in that regard was that, because of the exchanges, there would be some people who would not seek their health care through employment. They would be liberated to be able to get it through the exchange. I'm glad the gentleman confirmed the importance of CBO numbers. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, all the charts in the world can't wish away the CBO letter of January 6 of this year which says that the premiums will go down in the employer market, that people, on average, will pay less in the individual market, and that this legislation will reduce the deficit and the debt over the next 20 years. Again, that is the call from the nonpartisan experts we have. We shouldn't be substituting our judgment for theirs.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. That is why she was such a good role model for Christina Taylor Green--the 9-year-old girl born on that terrible day of September 11, 2001, and who was gunned down on another awful day for our Nation. Christina Taylor Green, Gabe Zimmerman, and four others are, tragically, no longer with us. As we mourn their loss, we also pray for the full recovery of those who were injured. Gabby Giffords' light continues to shine, and she will continue to inspire young and old throughout Arizona and our Nation. God bless Gabby Giffords and all the victims of this horrible tragedy.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, many of us have just come from a congressional prayer service for the victims of the terrible tragedy in Arizona where we sang ``Heal Us Now.'' We all know in this body that Gabby Giffords is one of our brightest lights: smart, fair, courageous, and considerate of people of all points of view. She is a very effective legislator and a caring and thoughtful friend. And the people of Arizona could not have a better representative in this United States Congress. On Saturday, she was doing the job she loves so dearly and takes so seriously: meeting with her constituents and listening to their concerns when this senseless act of violence occurred. We come together to grieve for those who were killed, including Gabby's talented and energetic outreach director, Gabe Zimmerman; to pray for the quick recovery of those injured; and to honor those who, in a moment of chaos and violence, took heroic actions that saved the lives of many, including Gabby. Gabby Giffords is a person who is always thinking of others--her constituents, her staff, her colleagues. I spoke with her frequently during the very tough campaign she went through, and she was always just asking how were her colleagues doing. Today, in that same way, Gabby would want us to be thinking and praying for the others--for her fallen and injured constituents and for her heroic staff. Gabe Zimmerman died doing what he loved, serving the people of Arizona. His many good works are a testament to the selfless works of public service performed by congressional staff every day for the people of our districts and our Nation. Gabby Giffords has always conducted herself in a manner that brings honor on this people's House. She passionately advocates for the positions and issues she cares so deeply about but always in a way that is respectful of opposing views. She is a fierce competitor, but is always considerate of others.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Reclaiming my time, I think my friend knows they did that as part of a whole tax reform package that closed the tax loopholes that your proposal would open.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, the American people did not bargain for a plan in the first 24 hours of the new Congress that would blow a hole in the deficit and expand the debt. The chairman of the Rules Committee mentioned the recent bipartisan tax agreement. We also recently had a bipartisan commission on the deficit and debt reduction. It looked at both sides of the equation-- spending and the fact that we have created lots of tax loopholes that have lost revenue to special interests. What this plan does, what the rule does, is say that that doesn't matter, that it doesn't count against the deficit. In fact, the existing rules under the House say that you cannot use the budget reconciliation process to add to the deficit. Your rule specifically eliminates that restriction. Your rule says go ahead and use the budget reconciliation process to add to the deficit and debt. You strike it. You give a green light. This rule also contains, on page 28, a little noticed provision that opens the door to politically motivated, Enron-style accounting as a means to do an end run around the pay-as-you-go law signed by President Obama. The current practice of this Congress has been that we will use the budget estimates of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to determine the deficit impact on the laws that we pass here in this body for the purpose of pay-as-you-go. That is because, while we should have a vigorous debate over policy, we don't want politicians inventing self-serving budget numbers. Now, the Congressional Budget Office serves as our umpire. They call the balls and the strikes, as you know. Sometimes we don't like the calls they make. Sometimes we do. Yet what this rule says is we are going to take the umpire off the field when it comes to statutory PAYGO. We are going to substitute our accounting for the folks whose professional job it is to determine the deficit impact of different legislation that we pass. I think when the American people find out that this opens the door to this kind of fun and games, they are going to ask themselves: Is this something I really bargained for?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, on this opening day of the new Congress I know that we all hope to work together to tackle the major problems that face our country. We heard that sentiment expressed by the outgoing Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and by the incoming Speaker, John Boehner. That is why the rules package, the plan put forth by the Republican majority not less than 2 hours after those comments were made, is so disappointing, because after months on the campaign trail telling the American people that they want to reduce deficits and the debt, this rule opens the door to larger deficits and a bigger national debt. It is a fiscally reckless blueprint, and the American people deserve better. Why do I say that? Because this plan guts the existing pay-as-you-go rule that limits mandatory spending and tax breaks that add to our deficits. It also creates a mechanism to do an end run against the pay-as-you- go law recently signed by President Obama that will limit increases in our national debt. How does this proposal do that? The rule and the laws we've been operating on say you can't add to the deficit by adding new spending entitlements. This rule, properly, keeps that restraint, as it should. But the rule being proposed, the plan being proposed, also eliminates provisions that says you can't add to the deficit by creating special interest tax breaks. The proposal before us eliminates that limitation. It says that the Congress will ignore the deficit impact of tax breaks whether they're for hedge funds or for other special interests. Now, Mr. Speaker, every small business knows that there are two sides to balancing the books: the costs incurred by the business and the revenue the business brings in. This one-sided rule ignores half of that equation. No small business could operate and survive that way in the United States and neither can the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I plan to offer an amendment to the Republican plan that is very simple. It says that a measure may only qualify for an exemption under this subsection if it does not increase the deficit over the period of fiscal years 2011 through 2021 beyond the exemptions permitted under the current law of the land, under statutory PAYGO. And, at the appropriate moment, we will offer that.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (S. 372) to amend chapter 23 of title 5, United States Code, to clarify the disclosures of information protected from prohibited personnel practices, require a statement in nondisclosure policies, forms, and agreements that such policies, forms, and agreements conform with certain disclosure protections, provide certain authority for the Special Counsel, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 372, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2010. I would like to thank Senator Akaka, and the other Senators who have worked so hard to advance this bill to provide stronger whistleblower protections. This effort has spanned over a decade, and I am hopeful that it will come to a successful conclusion today. Whistleblower protections are a critical component in bringing about a more effective and accountable government. As the Congress considers proposals to address the deficit, our work needs to be pursued on numerous fronts. Whistleblowers risk their careers to challenge abuses, and gross waste of government resources. They deserve to be protected so they can carry out their important work conscientiously, and with the taxpayers best interests in mind. By providing new rights, remedies, and protections for government whistleblowers, this bill takes an important step toward curbing waste, fraud, and abuse. This will aid our deficit reduction efforts. S. 372, as passed by the Senate, reflects a bipartisan compromise between the original Senate bill and H.R. 1507, legislation I sponsored with Representatives Platts, Chairman Towns, and Representatives Waxman and Braley. The Oversight and Government Reform Committee has reported similar legislation, on a bipartisan basis, in each of the last two Congresses. The House of Representatives has twice passed similar bills, once in 2007 with 331 votes and again as a bipartisan amendment to the Recovery Act. Unfortunately, H.R. 1507 was stripped out of the Recovery Act during the conference with the Senate. Over the course of the last two years, we have worked with the Obama administration and the Senate to work out a compromise that retains the core protections for federal workers and national security personnel that were included in bills passed by the House in 2007 and 2009. The bill before us today restores Congress' intent to protect an employee for any lawful disclosure of waste, fraud, abuse, or illegality. S. 372 addresses several court decisions that have limited the protections Congress made available to federal employees under the 1989 Whistleblower Protection Act. These decisions quite frankly have gutted the protections available to federal employees. This bill provides the opportunity for whistleblower cases before the Merit Systems Protection Board to be reviewed by all of the Federal Circuits. Moreover it provides an opportunity for certain cases to receive jury trials. This expansion of opportunity for judicial review is critical. While I would have preferred broader criteria for review and that this enhanced judicial review be made permanent, I have reluctantly accepted the changes made by the Senate to narrow the circumstances under which cases can receive judicial review and to sunset these provisions in 5 years. This legislation also protects federal employees for disclosures related to distortions of government science and extends to employees of the Transportation Security Administration. S. 372 is a good bipartisan, bicameral compromise, and should be sent to the President without further delay. This bill, as passed by the Senate, included important protections for national security employees. These provisions had been included with significant input from the national security community and passed the Senate by unanimous consent. Unfortunately, jurisdictional disputes within the House have prompted us to remove these protections in the interest of passing the rest of these essential reforms. I regret the loss of these provisions and look forward to working with incoming Chairman Issa to advance these protections for national security employees in the next Congress. I want to thank my cosponsor and partner on this bill, Todd Platts for his assistance and strong leadership. I also want to thank Chairman Towns and Ranking Member Issa for their strong support throughout this Congress to advance this important legislation. I'll close by simply noting that this legislation is long overdue. Without whistleblowers and the unfiltered information that government insiders can provide, the oversight functions vested in Congress would be seriously compromised, as would our efforts to rein in the federal budget deficit. I encourage all Members to support this important bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I have an amenment at the desk.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform be discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 1461) supporting Olympic Day on June 23, 2010, and congratulating Team USA and World Fit participants, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of legislation that would help thousands of first responders who were exposed to hazardous health conditions in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks. Many first responders bravely answered the call of duty and rushed to the scene of the attacks. While they were helping out the victims, the responders unknowingly were exposed to long-term physical and mental health problems due to the residual dust, toxins, and chemicals from the attacks. Congress and the federal government have an obligation and a responsibility to care and help those who responded to the September 11th attacks. Madam Speaker, let us not forget the sacrifice and service of those brave individuals who responded to one of the worst attacks in American history. I am pleased that my colleagues in the Senate were able to come to a bipartisan agreement on this bill. I urge my House colleagues to support this legislation so that the thousands of 9/11 responders can get the help they need.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measures just considered.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this Continuing Resolution, which will fund government operations at FY 2010 levels through March 4, 2011. Madam Speaker, this bill is not my first choice, or even my second choice. And I don't think anyone believes our country is well-served by having its government run on a series of short-term funding measures. But since the Senate was apparently unable to act on either the House- passed year- long Continuing Resolution, or an Omnibus spending package, we are left with today's resolution. When the 112th Congress convenes, I sincerely hope we will be able to return to regular order and enact annual, fully vetted, fiscally responsible spending bills that reflect the pliorities and values of our nation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise to support the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act. As the United States faces increasing competition in the global economy, we will only maintain our advantage by fostering our ability to innovate. America COMPETES makes the investments necessary to ensure that we remain at the cutting edge of research and development. The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act is a comprehensive approach to invest in education, research, and small business to grow America's innovation economy. By providing resources for basic research, facilitating the use of new technologies by American manufacturers, and training a new generation of science, technology, math, and engineering (STEM) workers, we can create good, sustainable jobs at home and ensure that the United States remains competitive. The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act creates a path to double basic research funding at NSF, NIST, and DOE's Office of Science over the next ten years. It supports important programs to expand American energy technology and fosters regional innovation clusters and research parks for economic development across the country. And it coordinates STEM education activities across the Federal Government so we can focus resources on our most effective programs. Madam Speaker, every dollar that we invest in science and technology pays dividends in economic growth and ensures that the United States remains at the forefront of discovery. I thank Chairman Gordon for his work on this issue and urge my colleagues to vote to pass this bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation that will provide the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, much-needed enhanced authorities to protect the American public from unsafe foods. Serious gaps have been exposed in the FDA's ability to protect the American public from outbreaks of food-borne diseases. These outbreaks have shaken consumer confidence in the industry that produces one of our most basic and important commodities that Americans depend on daily--the food we eat. While I prefer the stronger food safety bill that the House passed last year, the Senate-passed FDA Food Safety Modernization Act will make substantial improvements to our food safety system. It includes critical reforms that will improve the FDA's ability to better prevent outbreaks and protect the safety of our food supply and it will allow the FDA to conduct increased inspections, enhance surveillance and traceability of food products, and give the FDA the authority to issue mandatory recalls. Mr. Speaker, we must ensure that the FDA has the necessary tools and resources to fulfill its vital mission of helping protect the American public from unsafe products. This food safety bill is an important part of that effort. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have worked with Congressman Pomeroy and Chairman Levin and others on the amendment that we're going to be voting on later tonight. While this House recently passed, and Democrats have been fighting, to ensure that tax rates do not go up on 98 percent of the American people, Senate Republicans made it clear that they will raise, that they will raise taxes on every American if they don't get a special bonus tax break for the very top 2 percent. In order to break that stalemate, President Obama concluded he needed to cut a deal. What this amendment we will be voting on later tonight does is give the American people a better deal. Specifically, it asks all of us to consider this question: In an era of $1 trillion deficits, with our national debt approaching $14 trillion, barely 2 weeks after the bipartisan fiscal commission's ``Moment of Truth'' report, should we really be borrowing $23 billion from China to give the wealthiest 6,600 estates an average tax break of $1.7 million a year? Think about it: $23 billion for the wealthiest 6,600 estates a year, at a time of fiscal challenge, in a Nation of over 300 million people, without any benefit for job creation or economic growth. Mr. Chairman, much of the deal negotiated by the White House is defensible. But I would say to my colleagues, if we can't agree now that now is not the time to be giving the top three-tenths of 1 percent a multi-million dollar tax break, we're clearly not serious about bringing down the deficit. There's another way, and that's in the amendment we will be voting on later today. We can adopt the amendment. It will provide a $3.5 million exemption and 45 percent maximum rate. That's identical, identical to the rates and exemptions that were in effect in 2009 and significantly better than the rates that will take place if we take no action on January 1 when the exemption would go to 1 million and the rate would go to 55 percent. In fact, if enacted, this amendment would represent the lowest estate tax in 77 years up through 2009. Mr. Chairman, we have to level with the American people. We've got to start somewhere bringing down the deficits. And if we can't settle on the estate tax exemptions and rates that were in place in 2009, which, as I say, were the lowest, the lowest in 77 years, if we can't do that and, instead, we're going to say to the very wealthiest estates, heck, we're going to give you $23 billion over the next 2 years to benefit just 6,600 estates, how can we look the American people in the eye and say we're serious? Mr. Chairman, I hope when this amendment comes up later today we can make this deal one that truly benefits all the interests of all the people in this great country.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, after much deliberation, I rise in opposition to today's legislation. To me, this has never been about the wisdom or necessity of compromise. Like most of my colleagues, I understand the need for compromise, and I fully appreciate the predicament the President found himself in. While Democrats have been fighting to ensure tax rates do not go up on 98% of Americans, Senate Republicans have made it abundantly clear they are willing to raise taxes on every American this January unless they get a bonus tax break for the wealthiest in our society--and provide a tax-cut bonanza to a handful of super-rich estates. In order to break the stalemate, the President concluded he needed a deal--a deal that had to balance two of our Nation's very real but competing imperatives: the need to accelerate economic growth, and the need to reduce our national debt. Some elements of today's legislation strike the right balance. In particular, the middle class tax cuts, unemployment benefits and Recovery Act credits for working families are both economically justifiable and likely to achieve their intended effect. Unfortunately, other provisions significantly miss the mark. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the $89 billion spent extending tax breaks for upper income earners is unlikely to create jobs. Moreover, I have significant concerns about the structure and long term consequences of the payroll tax holiday. But the tipping point in this package is the estate tax. In an era of $1 trillion deficits, with our national debt approaching $14 trillion, barely two weeks after the publication of the bipartisan Fiscal Commission's ``Moment of Truth'' report, does anybody really think we should be borrowing $23 billion from China to give the wealthiest 6600 estates an average tax break of $1.7 million a year? Think about it. $23 Billion. For the wealthiest 6600 estates a year. In a nation of over 300 million people. Without any benefit whatsoever for job creation or economic growth. I would say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that if we can't look this moment squarely in the eye and conclude that now is not the time to be giving the top three tenths of one percent of Americans a multi-million tax break, we are clearly not serious about tackling the monumental fiscal challenges we face. And I would remind my colleagues that these fiscal challenges are not theoretical. Earlier this week, Moody's warned that today's legislation increased the likelihood of a downgrade to the United States' Triple-A rating over the next two years. Bond prices have fallen sharply and yields now sit at six month highs. If we're not careful, the bond market could easily take away what today's legislation aims to provide. Many of my Republican colleagues supporting today's legislation profess a commitment to fiscal discipline and balanced budgets, but turn a blind eye to deficit spending so long as it arises from tax cuts. This is not coincidence. The rationale for the inconsistency has been succinctly explained by conservative activist Grover Norquist, who once proclaimed: ``I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.'' After starving government, these same Republicans will undoubtedly be back in the 112th Congress demanding debilitating and draconian cuts in priority investments like education, clean energy and biomedical research. This playbook is as predictable as it is misguided. Mr. Chair, we simply cannot afford to borrow billions of dollars to perpetuate wasteful and unwarranted tax breaks for our wealthiest citizens at a time of unprecedented and unsustainable national debt-- tax breaks that do little for job creation and even less for the economy. I accept the need for a deal. But for our children and our grandchildren, I firmly believe there is a better deal to be had.