macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2012-09-12
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I rise today to honor one of this bodys finest members. Congressman JERRY F. COSTELLO. for his longtime service to the Congress. Mr. COSTELLO has worked on behalf of the people of southern Illinois for more than 24 years. passionately bringing their concerns with him to Washington and diligently partnering with his colleagues to get the job done. Beyond his service to the people of Illinois 12th District. Congressman COSTELLO has been a steadfast leader for our nations transportation infrastructure. He was instrumental in the creation of national highway bills that have become the groundwork for a more prosperous America. and a tireless advocate for aviation measures that have made our skies safer and our airlines stronger. It has been a privilege to serve in this House with Congressman COSTELLO. and I am proud today to stand with my colleagues and pay tribute to his distinguished career and leadership. We salute a gentleman who has made a positive impact on the lives of those he has served. and who leaves a legacy worthy of this institution. I wish him. his wife Georgia. and his family well on their future endeavors.
Date: 2012-09-13
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I join in asking for calm. along with Secretary Clinton. in this violent and tumultuous world. and particularly with regard to the actions that are going on in Yemen. Cairo. and certainly Libya. I offer my deepest sympathy to those who lost their lives. I stand again to say. as the Secretary indicated this morning. that the American people and the American Government had absolutely nothing to do with this heinous film. but we reject the horrible and horrific violence. I am also saddened to hear that resources probably prevented some of the reinforcing of some of our Embassies. We cannot shortchange the securing of the homeland. and as we go forward in dealing with sequestration. I beg that we understand that we must protect those who serve us overseas. including the United States military. But I call for peace. I know the American people realize that no religion should be denigrated. but we cannot accept and will not accept and will stand against any violence against the American people or those who serve us in a civilian manner with honor and dignity. To their families. I offer my deepest sympathy and a commitment that we will stand against terrorism.
Date: 2012-09-13
Speaker: AL GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I refuse to participate in what I call "Medicare class warfare." I refuse to pit those who are 55 and above against those who are under 55. Mr. Speaker. I believe that those of us who are above 55 ought to want the same health care for those who are under 55 that were going to receive. I refuse to participate in Medicare class warfare. I believe that those who are at the dawn of life should know that they will have the same health care benefits that we will have at the twilight of life. Again. I refuse to participate in Medicare class warfare.
Date: 2012-09-13
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Thank you for the time. Mr. Speaker. Members. the original law that this bill amends today was actually created. the loan program. was in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Republican President. The law does need to have minor reforms. but this bill goes way too far. The majority had the opportunity in our committee of Energy and Commerce to work in a bipartisan fashion to actually fix the problems with the loan guarantee program. I offered an amendment to the Rules Committee that had been supported by Republicans in our committee. but not a majority of the Republicans. to fix the problems with the program and find middle ground that would be suitable to both Democrats and Republicans alike. But the majority chose a different path. They decided to forge ahead with a partisan messaging bill that stands no chance of becoming law even when it passes the House today. So despite the name. this bill will not prevent another Solyndra. Its the worst of electionyear politics. We had a chance to work together. something the American people want to see. and one of the things we were sent here to do was fix a broken program. Instead. were playing more politics one more time. The bill is bad policy. It doesnt do what conservatives want to do. so the Heritage Foundation opposes it. It doesnt do what the liberals want to do. It eliminates a wellbalanced. bipartisan agreement struck years ago. so it isnt what moderates want to do. Its legislating without accountability. The majority doesnt care that its bad policy because it will never become law. Instead. I urge my colleagues to find the bipartisanship. Lets take this opportunity to fix the problem that we see and craft a bipartisan bill. This is a chance to show our country that Congress can do things. One of the reasons Congress has a 10 percent approval rating is were not legislating. Were messaging. This is probably the worst example of it. Were talking past each other. This is a chance to show our country that Congress can do things. Instead. this partisan circus helps confirm the belief that Congress is broken. and its working against the interest of the American people. I urge a "no" vote on the rule and support a bipartisan effort to really make sure there are no more Solyndras.
Date: 2012-09-13
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of H. Res. 778. the Rule providing for consideration of H.J. Res. 117. making further continuing appropriations for the beginning of the 2013 Fiscal Year. This measure will continue to assure funding for all federal government agencies and allow the government to continue its day to day operations through March of 2013. I am quick to note Mr. Speaker the attempt by the Rules Committee Ranking Member.
Date: 2012-09-13
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. on September 13. 2012. I inadvertently voted "nay" on Roll No. 575. I ask that the record reflect that I intended to vote "yea." to approve H.R. 1775.
Date: 2012-09-13
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. this is really quite a charade were engaged in here today on the floor of the House of Representatives. Lets just flash back a year ago to how we got to this spot. At that time. our Republican colleagues threatened that the United States would default on its full faith and credit. that we wouldnt pay the bills that we already incurred. that this Congress had already voted for. and threatened to tank the economy unless we passed their version of the budget. the Ryan budget. the budget that came out of the House Budget Committee. In order to prevent the United States from defaulting. everybody got togetherthe House. the Senate. and the Presidentand they passed the Budget Control Act. To hear our Republican colleagues today. youd think they had nothing to do with the Budget Control Act. We heard the chairman of the Budget Committee.
Date: 2012-09-13
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Weve heard before that there was this vote on the Presidents plan and that it got no votes. We had a vote on a fake Presidents plan. When we actually had to vote on the Democratic alternative. which the White House made clear was closer to their plan than the one that was put up for a fake vote. it got a huge vote from our Democratic colleagues. I would just ask Mr. WEST to read his own amendment. Because if you read the bill. its pretty clear if we were to pass it and the Senate was to pass it and the President would sign it. it doesnt make the sequester go away. No. it doesnt make the sequester go away. It calls for action. In fact. it says the President should submit a plan within a certain period of time. Its right here in your bill: Presidential submission not later than October 15. 2012. The President shall transmit to the Congress a legislative proposal.
Date: 2012-09-13
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Exactly. And reclaiming my time. thats exactly right. Thats exactly what it says. But you tell the President what his plan has to do. You tell the President that his plan cannot include one penny of revenue for the purpose of reducing the deficit. In other words. you say the Presidents plan has got to look like your plan. So. Mr. Speaker. the issue here is not whether the President has a plan or not. He does have a plan. Our Republican colleagues dont like it because it says that its more important to protect defense spending and protect domestic spending like NIH than it is to protect special interest tax loopholes. And I see the chairman of the Armed Services Committee on the floor. and I respect him greatly. Thats the position he took last October. Heres what he said when he was asked: "If it came that I had only two choices. one was a tax increase and one was a cut in defense over and above where we already are. I would go to strengthen defense." That is the Presidents position. Thats the Presidents position. Mr. WEST. He said we need to take a balanced approach to reducing the deficit. We need to combine cuts. But we also should end special interest tax breaks for the big oil companies. George Bush himself said when youve got oil above $50 a barrel. you dont need these ridiculous incentives to keep them drilling. And we should ask very wealthy individuals. frankly. to pay the same tax rate that the people who work for them do. the same effective tax rate. And we should eliminate some of these ag subsidies. Now you asked about other proposals. I have a proposal in my hand. I took it to the House Rules Committee yesterday. It would have totally replaced the sequester. If we actually voted on this. it would replace the sequester for defense and nondefense. You know how we do it? We do it through cuts to big ag subsidies. we do it by eliminating subsidies for the big oil companies. and yes. we ask people making more than a million dollars a year to pay a little bit more because we think its more important to do that than allow these cuts to defense to take place and all the consequences you talk about. and we think its important to protect investments in places like NIH. people who are fighting to try and find cures for diseases. So. Madam Speaker. the issue is not whether we replace the sequester. The Presidents got a proposal. Ive got a proposal. Its how we do it. And. again. our Republican colleagues have doubled down on this idea that youre going to protect every tax break thats out there before you protect spending on our national defense. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2012-09-13
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just would ask the gentleman. and I would yield to him for an answer. whether he means Bain Capital is a small business.
Date: 2012-09-13
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Speaker. reclaiming my time. Mr. WEST. when Mr. Romney and Mr. RYAN and all our Republican colleagues cite those figures about passthroughs. that includes companies like Bain Capital. It also includes some Fortune 100 companies. The President has put forward a proposal that says lets act right now to extend tax relief to 98 percent of the American people and 97 percent of all passthrough businesses. Its true we dont think that Bain Capital needs a big additional tax break when weve got a big deficit that we should deal with in what we think should be a balanced way. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2012-09-13
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Its hard to know where to begin becauseI hope everyone was listening very carefully. If we allow these spending cuts to take place. we will lose hundreds of thousands of jobs in Virginia alone. Thousands of jobs around the country. You know. Ive heard a lot of complaints from our Republican colleagues about the recovery bill and the fact that we had to do some emergency spending to prevent the loss of millions of jobs. You know what? That worked. And here our Republican colleagues here today are saying that weve got to make sure the spending cuts dont take place because if we do. it will result in a lot of lost jobs. Well. you know what? It takes jobs to build an aircraft carrier. absolutely. It also creates jobs when you invest in trying to repair and modernize our roads and our bridges. our infrastructure. The President submitted a jobs bill more than a year ago to this House to do exactly that. Lets invest more in modernizing our infrastructure. We havent had a single vote on the Presidents jobs bill. So Im really glad to hear our Republican colleagues say that if we make these kinds of cuts. its going to result in lost jobs because you know what? You are right about that. The debate today is not about whether we should prevent the sequester from taking place. As I said. we should. Its how we do that. I heard again from the Republican leader the President doesnt have a plan. He has a plan. They just dont like his plan. They dont like his plan because it takes a balanced approach. It says. you know what? In addition to cuts. we should also ask people who make more than a million dollars a year to contribute a little more to reducing our national deficit and preventing the sequester. We should ask big oil companies to give up their taxpayer subsidies. So. the question. Madam Speaker. is not whether we replace the sequester. There are lots of plans that Ive already talked about. The one in my hand. I offered it yesterday. I cant get a vote on it today. The issue is not whether. its how. We should take a balanced approach. I yield now 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania
Date: 2012-09-13
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I agree with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. we should act like adults. We agree that the sequester cuts are done in a stupid. meatax way. We also agree with what the chairman of the Armed Services Committee said last October when. if it came to choosing between allowing all of the terrible consequences that he rightly spoke about and taking a balanced approach to deficit reduction which included some additional revenue. he would accept the balanced approach.
Date: 2012-09-13
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Thank you. Mr. Chairman. We wanted to give you that opportunity yesterday. which is why I went to the House Rules Committee with this substitutewhich is in my hand. Mr. Chairmanthat said you can replace the sequester right away if youre willing to cut some big ag subsidies. which I thought we were all agreed that we could do. but also get rid of some of the subsidies for the Big Oil companies. not some of the smaller producers. the big five. and you ask folks over $1 million to pay the same effective rate that people who work for them pay. I agree with what you said last October. which is that its more important to prevent the kind of cuts that were talking about here today to defense and nondefense than it is to protect tax breaks for Big Oil companies. Mr. Chairman. I wanted to vote. We wanted to vote. If the Rules Committee will allow us a vote. you can do it right now. In fact. the thing I have in my hand. the substitute. if we passed it. would actually replace the sequester. The resolution on the floor doesnt replace the sequester. even if it goes to the White House. I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan. the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee. Mr. LEVIN.
Date: 2012-09-13
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Speaker. I want to thank my friend from California for those comments. and I would just say this: I have in my hand a proposal. a substitute amendment. If we passed it. it would prevent the sequester from taking place on defense and non- defense in a balanced way. You spend these things one time to get rid of the sequester. The chairman of the Armed Services Committee said he wished he had an opportunity to vote on something like this. and I say to him. I wish the Rules Committee had given him that opportunity. With that. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland. the distinguished Democratic whip. Mr. HOYER.
Date: 2012-09-13
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Speaker. I wish Mr. MULVANEY were more persuasive with his colleagues because we agree. I wish we had a vote on this. Were happy to have that debate. In fact. thats what weve been having on the floor today. We heard a lot from our colleagues about the devastating impact of these cuts on defense and other things. and we agree. which is why we think its appropriate to ask people who earn more than a $1 million a year to help contribute a little bit more to our deficit so that we dont have to see these consequences. I now yield 11/2 minutes to the gentleman from New York .
Date: 2012-09-13
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Thank you very much to the ranking member of the Budget Committee. Madam Speaker. we rise today to try to bring some logic and sense. because as Americans debate sequestration. they throw their hands up and say. What is that? What is that in the minds of children and the elderly? What does that mean in a real rational way of coming together and saying there are some cuts and there are some revenue increases to be able to invest in the American public? In order to create jobs. you expend dollars. you invest in research and development. you help to create opportunities for small businesses. you help to promote manufacturing. Thats how you create jobs. But let me tell you what the underlying bill says. This bill will only take effect one year later. It has no opportunity. no desire. and no rationale to raise revenue. Every thinking economist says that we must raise revenue in order to reduce the deficit and continue to spend dollars to invest in the American public. Do you want your military families to be on food stamps? Do you want 50 million Americans to suffer food insecurity? Do you want these Americans to suffer? That would include seniors on Meals on Wheels. home care. adult protective services. Millions of children. onethird of them. depend on these social service block grants. child protective services. foster care and child care. This also includes 1 million disabled. respite care or transportation. Do you want to. as I said. continue the food insecurity for 60 million children? All I can say is that this bill not only kicks the can down the road. it kicks the mountain down the road. Lets vote against this bill. Lets sit down at the table. boost revenue. and invest in the American people.
Date: 2012-09-13
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Speaker. I yield myself the remainder of my time. Madam Speaker. the issue all afternoon has not been whether we should replace the sequester. Yes. we should. The issue has been how we do that. Weve heard our Republican colleagues talk about the devastating impact of the sequester on defense and nondefense. We agree. Thats why we put forward a plan to replace the sequester in the balanced way that has been recommended by bipartisan groups through a combination of cuts. but also revenues generated by things like closing the tax loopholes for big oil companies. Our Republican colleagues have just doubled down on the position that its more important to protect tax breaks for big oil companies and very wealthy individuals than it is to protect our investment in spending in defense or other important national priorities. Thats what this debate is all about. I hope we will reject this proposal and adopt a more balanced one. With that. Madam Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2012-09-13
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Will the gentleman yield? Thats just not true. We asked the Parliamentarian. and they said we couldnt bring it in that format because of the rule.
Date: 2012-09-14
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I thank our ranking member for allowing me to speak. Mr. Chairman. as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committees Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee. I have been involved in the investigation of the Solyndra loan for several months. During the investigation. I learned that the Department of Energy made a mistake. and I join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in expressing my frustration that such a mistake could have happened. I was angered even more to find out that the taxpayers investment would be paid back after the investments of outside investors. I believed we explicitly outlawed this in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Department of Energy did what other administrations have donethey went lawyer shopping to find a legal opinion that allowed them to do what they wanted. This shouldnt have happened. Early on. it appeared the best way to make sure there would be no more Solyndras was to close this loophole. something I believed there would have been bipartisan support to do. Instead. my Republican friendssmelling blood in the waterdecided to take a different approach. They are pursuing more political theater. virtually ensuring that the loan guarantee program will continue to be broken. Worse yet. the bill doesnt even accomplish what they want to do. so their allies. like the Heritage Foundation. oppose it. When we go home this weekend. we will once again be confronted with frustrated constituents who will be asking us. Why cant you work together in Washington? After seeing this bill pass on a mostly partyline vote. what are we supposed to tell themthat we were faced with the opportunity to cut government waste. to close a loophole and to protect the interest of the taxpayers but that we didnt do it? We are passing a bill that will never become law. The problems we identified in the Solyndra investigation will continue to exist. and we will be leaving our constituents on the hook for future Solyndras. I urge my colleagues to vote against the bill. It is bad policy and undoes a bipartisan compromise from 2005. Instead. lets work together to find common ground and pass a bill that will fix the problems without the politics.
Date: 2012-09-14
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. it is a great privilege for me to rise on the floor of the House today to pay tribute to astronaut Neil Armstrong. an American hero. Yesterday. at the National Cathedral. we paid tribute to him as a national hero and recognize that his name will forever be a testament to our Nations will to prevail in the challenge for successful space exploration and push the boundaries. going where no man has gone before. As a 12year member of the House Science Committee and a member of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee. I can tell you that I am deeply indebted. but also embedded with the idea of human space exploration. How can I not be. representing and coming from the community where NASA Johnson Space Center is. Today I rise in tribute to all of them and recognize the greater leadership that Neil Armstrong gave as a humble American. He. along with fellow astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collin. shared a most significant time in our historyone small step for man. but a great and gigantic step for humanity. Right now in Houston. we are celebrating 50 years of human space exploration at the Hyatt Regency. commemorating NASA Johnson. I want to thank Dr. Mae Jemison and all those who came after this great hero for continuing the dream. They can count on me as a Member of the United States Congress to fight again for human space exploration. Thank you. Neil Armstrong. an American hero. May you rest in peace.