Chris Van Hollen RSS Articles

Van Hollen Opposes GOP Plan to Make College More Expensive

Thu, 23 May 2013 04:00:00 GMT

Today Maryland Congressman Chris Van Hollen issued the following statement in opposition to HR 1911, which would make college more expensive for students in Maryland and across the country:

“HR 1911 is the wrong approach to a very real problem for our nation’s students. As we all know, the interest rate on student loans will double in July if Congress does not act. But today’s legislation is not the solution. In fact, it will make student loans more expensive, not less.

“Student loan debt already tops $1.1 trillion, burdening recent graduates with high monthly payments even as they struggle to find jobs and start their lives. With that much debt at the start of their careers, they may put off purchases like a home or a car. But rather than address that problem, today’s bill would add $3.7 billion in additional loan interest charges over the next ten years. In fact, if we did nothing and allowed the student loan interest rate to double, students would be better off than they would be under HR 1911.

“It also makes it difficult for students to accurately predict their college costs. Under this proposal, the interest rate on loans would be recalculated every year for the life of the loan. According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, interest rates will be higher than current rates for seven of the next ten years. A borrower who takes out a loan next year under the Republican plan would see his interest rate more than double by the time he starts repaying that loan in 2017.

“We need a comprehensive solution to the problem of student debt that includes affordable financial assistance and works with states and colleges to keep costs down. It is time to reauthorize the Higher Education Act – let’s take this opportunity to negotiate a sustainable, long-term plan that works better for students.”

Statement of Congressman Chris Van Hollen in opposition to The Northern Route Approval Act (HR 3)

Wed, 22 May 2013 04:00:00 GMT

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation, which is a transparent attempt to skirt federal law so that the majority can impose its own preferred outcome on the State Department’s ongoing regulatory review of the Keystone XL pipeline.

Although my colleagues on the other side of the aisle make much of their professed commitment to regular order and distaste for earmarks, recent developments — including today’s legislation — make clear that commitment is only as deep as it is convenient.

Regular order? We are now 37 days past due on delivering an FY 2014 Budget, and the majority still refuses to go to conference.

Earmarks? This legislation — which carves out numerous special exceptions for a single pipeline project benefitting one company — is clearly an earmark.

Mr. Speaker, the decision as to whether to build the northern route of the Keystone XL pipeline should be made based on a complete and thorough evaluation of its impacts on our climate, energy security, water supply, job creation, air quality, balance of trade, human health and other relevant factors — not some hastily thrown together, ill-considered and politically driven exercise.

I urge a no vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Van Hollen Introduces Updated House Democratic Sequester Replacement

Tue, 21 May 2013 04:00:00 GMT

Last night Maryland Congressman Chris Van Hollen, Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee, introduced the House Democrats’ updated sequester replacement bill. The legislation would completely replace the across-the-board cuts through fiscal year 2014, while continuing to call for a balanced solution to stop the full multi-year sequester.

“The GOP is clearly content to continue the deep, arbitrary sequester cuts – House Republicans have failed to offer their own solution this Congress and blocked a vote on our proposal four times, and many have even publicly declared they want the sequester remain in effect,” said Congressman Van Hollen. “They also refuse to move the budget process forward, which would allow Congress to address the sequester.”

“We’ve already started to see the consequences of these harmful cuts. At a time when we should be doing everything we can to boost job growth, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the sequester will cost 750,000 jobs in this year alone. These cuts also mean kids forced out of Head Start, seniors kicked off Meals on Wheels, and critical investments in research and technology slashed. Yet Washington Republicans refuse to act,” Van Hollen added. “House Democrats will keep working to replace the sequester and fighting for working families. It’s time for the GOP to join that effort instead of refusing to even negotiate.”

The balanced plan contains $181 billion in deficit reduction, which will more than replace the sequester through fiscal year 2014. The package is roughly half revenue and half cuts (54 percent and 46 percent, respectively). To read a summary of the legislation, click here.

###

Van Hollen: Let Us Have a Vote to Appoint Budget Conferees to Get On With the Nation’s Business

Fri, 17 May 2013 04:00:00 GMT

Today Maryland Congressman Chris Van Hollen, Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee, spoke on the floor of the House in favor of allowing his resolution urging Speaker Boehner to appoint budget conferees to move forward. Below is a transcript and video of his remarks:

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I thank my friend from Massachusetts.

“There’s been a lot of talk on the floor this morning about the sequester and the negative impact it’s having on the economy. I would remind my colleagues, as my friend from Massachusetts, Mr. McGovern, did, that on four occasions the House Democrats have tried to bring to this floor for a vote a bill that would replace the sequester, end the disruption, and end the job loss that the Congressional Budget Office says is coming with the sequester.

“And this morning, we are going to ask this House to take a simple vote on another resolution. And I’m going to read it because it’s really simple. It says, ‘Resolved, that it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the Speaker should follow regular House procedure and immediately request a conference and appoint conferees to negotiate a fiscal year 2014 budget resolution agreement with the United States Senate.’

“Now, we all stood on this floor and heard our Republican colleagues criticize the United States Senate for three years because they did not have a budget. Well guess what? The United States Senate passed a budget more than 53 days ago. But now what’s happened is the Speaker of this House has refused to go to conference to negotiate a final budget.

“We heard for weeks and weeks the mantra, ‘no budget, no pay.’ Apparently that was a meaningless cry, because, as of right now, there is no federal budget and members of the House and the Senate are still getting paid. Did you mean it? Or did you not mean it?

“Now, we heard complaints about how the President’s budget was late this year. Guess what, Mr. Speaker? We are now way overdue in getting a resolution out of conference committee. If you look at the statute, the law, on the budget, it says the House and Senate are supposed to have completed conference action by April 15th. We are way overdue, and the only reason we are overdue is because this House and the Speaker of this House refuses to appoint conferees.

“Now, the Senate Democrats on eight occasions, Mr. Speaker, have asked for unanimous consent in the Senate to go to conference. And they have been blocked over there. It’s getting to be a little embarrassing to some of the Republican Senators.

“I just want to show you a quote from Senator McCain just the other day. Quoting Senator McCain, ‘I think it’s insane for Republicans, who complained for four years about Harry Reid not having a budget and now we’re not going to agree to conferees. That is beyond comprehension for me.’ And guess what, Mr. Speaker? This is getting to be beyond comprehension to the American people – saying one thing and doing another.

“Here are some other Republican Senators. Senator Boozman, ‘I think we need to go to conference.’ Senator Wicker, ‘I would say by the end of next week’ – that’s this coming week – ‘we probably should be ready to go to conference.’ Senator Coburn, I’m okay with it going right now. And on, and on.

“You would think our House Republican colleagues would begin to feel a little bit of sense of that embarrassment as well, given the fact they called for years to get a budget done and now are standing in the way of getting that exact budget done.

“In fact, the Speaker of this House, on multiple occasions, has said we should go to conference on the budget – that that’s how we resolve things, in the regular order.

“Here’s what the Speaker said on Meet the Press back in March, when we were all putting together our budgets – the Senate was putting together a budget, the House was putting together a budget. Here’s what the Speaker said, ‘It’s time for us to get back to regular order here in Congress. When the House passes a bill, the Senate passes a bill and if we disagree we go to conference to resolve those differences.’ And the Speaker has said this on multiple occasions.

“So I just want to read again from the resolution I’m asking this House to vote on this morning. It says, simply, resolved, that it is the sense of the House that the Speaker should follow regular House procedure and appoint the conferees that he told the country, on national television, he would do in order to make sure that we get on with the fundamental business of this country and pass a federal budget. Not just a House budget, not just a Senate budget – those things are meaningless by themselves. You’ve got to get a federal budget.

“So it turns out that this ‘no budget, no pay’ thing was really just a, kind of, wink-wink – knowing, hey, the House can pass a budget, Senate can pass a budget, but it doesn’t actually get the job done.

“So Mr. Speaker, I just ask, let us have a vote to appoint conferees to get on with the nation’s business. I thank you and yield back my time.”

Van Hollen Announces First Round of Winners of the 2013 Public Service Awards

Fri, 17 May 2013 04:00:00 GMT

Today Maryland Congressman Chris Van Hollen announced the first round of recipients of the 2013 Van Hollen Public Service Award for outstanding community or public service. Congressman Van Hollen established the Public Service Award program to recognize graduating students in area high schools for their contributions to their school and/or to their community. Each participating high school in Maryland’s Eighth Congressional District was invited to select an outstanding student for this special recognition. Distribution of awards began May 1, 2013 and will continue through the month of June. The award reflects Congressman Van Hollen’s strong belief in the importance of community involvement and his desire to recognize individuals who are dedicated to serving others.

The list of schools and their Van Hollen Public Service Award winners follows:

High School	Location	Name of Awardee	Residence of Awardee
Stone Ridge	Bethesda	Glenna Thomas	Laytonsville
Academy of the Holy Cross	Kensington	Sarah Schech	Silver Spring
Wootton	Rockville	Sandhya Taneja	Gaithersburg
Springbrook	Silver Spring	Abhinav Jambulingam	Burtonsville
Montgomery Blair	Silver Spring	Peter Adler Asch	Silver Spring
John F. Kennedy	Silver Spring	Jana Anderson	Silver Spring
Richard Montgomery	Rockville	Jordan Perry	Rockville
Northwood	Silver Spring	Elias Jonatan Emanorado	Silver Spring
Wheaton	Wheaton	Rosa Diaz	Rockville

Statement of the Honorable Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) in opposition to The SEC Regulatory Accountability Act (HR 1062)

Fri, 17 May 2013 04:00:00 GMT

Mr. Speaker, as someone who believes the federal government has a responsibility to set and enforce clear and transparent rules of the road for our markets to operate fairly, efficiently and effectively, I believe conducting cost-benefit analysis of proposed regulations is both appropriate and necessary. Moreover, I think rules and regulations should be periodically reviewed — and eliminated or modified where needed — to ensure our markets are functioning optimally.

If that’s what this legislation was about, it would have my support. It’s not — which is why I will be opposing HR 1062 today.

Although you wouldn’t know it from listening to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the Securities and Exchange Commission already performs — and is already required to perform — extensive economic analysis regarding the regulations it promulgates, including rigorous cost-benefit analysis. Furthermore, in addition to protecting investors, SEC rulemakings are also already required to “promote efficiency, competition and capital formation.” Indeed, entities ranging from the Chamber of Commerce to the Government Accountability Office have all recently validated the SEC’s current staff guidance in this regard.

Unfortunately, rather than promoting clear and transparent rules of the road, arrived at through rigorous cost-benefit analysis, today’s legislation is very plainly an effort to do the opposite — to block even the most carefully considered regulation by creating a “paralysis of analysis” at the Securities and Exchange Commission in order to undermine the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform law.

Mr. Speaker, it was the absence of clear and transparent rules of the road that precipitated the Great Recession, and now that the economy has finally begun to heal, we are simply not going back to the conditions that created the crisis in the first place.

I urge a no vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Obamacare Repeal Vote #37 vs. House Republican Budget

Thu, 16 May 2013 04:00:00 GMT

Today, the House GOP has scheduled to vote on a bill (H.R. 45) to repeal the Affordable Care Act in its entirety.

There is just one problem: the House Republican budget numbers don’t work if the Affordable Care Act is completely repealed. Earlier this year, the House GOP patted itself on the back for putting together a budget resolution that reaches balance by 2023 and repeals health reform. But this “balance” is a fiction. The budget only repeals the parts of the Affordable Care Act that expand access to health coverage and improve consumer protections. The Republican budget leaves intact the law’s health savings, and – as confirmed by the Heritage Foundation – it also “keeps the tax increases associated with Obamacare.”

BALANCING THE BUDGET WITH REVENUE AND HEALTH SAVINGS THEY VOTED AGAINST

It is a total hoax for House Republicans to say at the same time that they are both repealing Obamacare and balancing the budget in ten years.
Their budget includes the $716 billion in ten-year Medicare savings from Obamacare – despite all the demagoguery from the GOP on this issue.
Their budget also keeps all of the revenue from health care reform – $1 trillion over ten years – even as it repeals the parts of the law that make coverage more affordable for millions of people and establish important patient protections.

THE BUDGET NUMBERS IN 2023

The House Republican budget claims to run a surplus of $7 billion in 2023.
If the budget had reflected the true effect of a complete repeal of Obamacare (including the effect on net interest payments), it instead would have shown a deficit of roughly $400 billion in 2023.
CBO’s May outlook projects lower baseline deficits than those projected when the House GOP developed its budget. But even after adjusting for CBO’s improved outlook, the House Republican budget would still fall far short of balance in 2023 if it reflected the full effect of repealing Obamacare.

Van Hollen Calls on Ways and Means to Ensure IRS Enforces Law Uniformly

Thu, 16 May 2013 04:00:00 GMT

Today Maryland Congressman Chris Van Hollen sent a letter to Ways and Means Committee Chairman Camp and Ranking Member Levin about the Treasury Inspector General’s finding that some IRS employees gave extra scrutiny to tea party and conservative groups that sought 501(c)(4) tax exempt status.

“As you know, the IG Report found that the IRS used inappropriate criteria to screen conservative groups seeking 501(c)(4) tax exempt treatment. But, it is important to note that the IG Report also faults the IRS for having failed to catch applications from organizations that probably should have been denied 501(c)(4) tax exempt status because their main purpose was to engage in political campaign activities,” wrote Congressman Van Hollen. “I am sure that you will agree that no organization, regardless of its political leanings, should be able to misuse one tax exempt status (501(c)(4)) to circumvent the donor disclosure requirements of another (Section 527 of the Tax Code).”

The full text of the letter is below.

May 16, 2013

The Honorable Dave Camp

Chairman

Committee on Ways and Means

U.S. House of Representatives

1102 Longworth House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Sander Levin

Ranking Member

Committee on Ways and Means

U.S. House of Representatives

1106 Longworth House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Camp and Ranking Member Levin:

I strongly support your decision to investigate the Treasury Inspector General’s finding that some IRS employees gave extra scrutiny to tea party and conservative groups that sought 501(c)(4) tax exempt status. That kind of political profiling is absolutely unacceptable and anyone who engaged in such misconduct should be held accountable. The President took an important step in asking for the resignation of the Acting Commissioner of the IRS.

The IRS should be enforcing the law on a uniform basis, regardless of the political leanings of the groups seeking approval of 501(c)(4) status. IRS regulations require that 501(c)(4) tax exempt status be granted only to organizations that engage primarily in “social welfare” activities. The Treasury Inspector General's May 14th report (the “IG Report”) shows that the number of organizations seeking this tax status has almost doubled from 2010 to 2012 – since the Supreme Court opened the door to the creation of Super PACs in Citizens United vs. FEC. This has raised the concern that many organizations have tried to use the 501(c)(4) tax exempt status to engage in significant political campaign activities without having to disclose their donors to the public.

As you know, the IG Report found that the IRS used inappropriate criteria to screen conservative groups seeking 501(c)(4) tax exempt treatment. But, it is important to note that the IG Report also faults the IRS for having failed to catch applications from organizations that probably should have been denied 501(c)(4) tax exempt status because their main purpose was to engage in political campaign activities. I am sure that you will agree that no organization, regardless of its political leanings, should be able to misuse one tax exempt status (501(c)(4)) to circumvent the donor disclosure requirements of another (Section 527 of the Tax Code).

In 2010, the House passed the DISCLOSE Act which would have required 501(c)(4) tax exempt organizations to disclose their donors. That Act would have removed the incentive for any groups engaged in political campaign activities to seek 501(c)(4) tax exempt status in order to hide their donors from public scrutiny. Unfortunately, the Senate version of the bill failed, by one vote, to break a filibuster.

As you consider what has transpired in this case, I urge you to direct the IRS to strictly enforce the letter and spirit of the tax law on those seeking tax exempt treatment and to do so without consideration of the organization's political affiliation or ideological orientation.

In the longer term, I hope we can remove the incentive for any group, regardless of its political orientation, to seek 501(c)(4) tax exempt status to engage in significant political campaign activities while hiding their donors. The IRS should not be in the position of having to determine whether the primary purpose of any organization is to engage in political campaign activity versus the promotion of the social welfare. Requiring full disclosure and transparency would go a long way to getting the IRS out of the business of making these determinations.

Sincerely,

Chris Van Hollen

Member of Congress

Van Hollen on MSNBC: IRS Needs to Apply the Law Uniformly, but It Should Apply It

Wed, 15 May 2013 04:00:00 GMT

Today Maryland Congressman Chris Van Hollen appeared on MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports with guest host Chris Cillizza to discuss the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the DISCLOSE Act, and the need to also focus on jobs and the economy. Below are highlights on his interview, and the full video is available here.

On the IRS –

“…the President very quickly then [after receiving IG report] indicated it was absolutely unacceptable, inexcusable – which it is. And now we need to get to the bottom of the facts, and Congress should do its job with respect to oversight.”

“…after Citizens United, which was the Supreme Court case that essentially said that corporations could spend as much money as they wanted, you had a proliferation of these groups trying to get into this game and get tax-exempt status – and at the same time not have to disclose their donors, some of them under the guise that they’re doing social welfare or educational work.”

“So yes, it’s wrong that the IRS selectively picked certain groups out. What’s also important, though, is that the IRS enforce this law uniformly. Because otherwise there will be groups, whether on the right or the left, that exploit and abuse this tax law for political purposes and in order to hide their donors. And so the IRS needs to apply the law uniformly, but it should apply it.

On the need for the DISCLOSE Act –

“Well in my view Chris, we should avoid this whole issue by requiring full disclosure of groups who are involved in this political activity – spending money to try and elect or defeat candidates. I introduced the DISCLOSE Act a number of years ago. We actually got it out of the House of Representatives when the Democrats were in the majority. We got 59 votes in the Senate, but Republicans blocked it through a filibuster.

“If we passed the DISCLOSE Act, we would take away the incentive that these groups have to try to get this kind of tax status, because this particular kind of tax status is what allows them to hide their donors. So this way they can run political ads without telling voters who they are and without telling voters who’s funding them.”

On the need to also focus on jobs and the economy –

“Well I’m very worried that it will distract the Congress from important issues like jobs and the economy. Now, it’s obviously important that Congress does its oversight function in a responsible way. We should get to the bottom of these issues and get the facts. What worries me is some of our Republican colleagues don’t just want to get to the facts, they want to spin conspiracy theories and distract attention from the fundamental issues that we’re facing right now: jobs and the economy.

“And we’re seeing that right now, Chris, in the fact that our Republican colleagues refuse to go to conference on the budget, which is the forum for moving forward on the economy, replacing the sequester, and making sure that we can get all Americans back to work.

“Congress should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.”

CBO Report Shows We Must Avoid Austerity Measures that Would Slow Economic Growth

Tue, 14 May 2013 04:00:00 GMT

Today Maryland Congressman Chris Van Hollen, Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee, issued the following statement on the updated budget projections from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO):

“The good news from today’s CBO report is that the near-term deficit is improving, but much of the improvement is a result of temporary factors. We must avoid austerity measures that would slow job growth in the short term, as we also work to reduce the long-term deficit in a balanced way. We should go to budget conference immediately to forge a path forward, create certainty for families and small businesses, and avoid self-inflicted economic wounds.”