macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I think the American families gathering around their tables do not have the option of not paying their bills on obligations theyve already incurred. They cant say. Oh. its okay to not pay my car payment. but I will pay my mortgage. They dont have that choice. and. frankly. the United States Government should not be saying that were going to make those choices. We should be paying all our bills. And I would remind my colleagues that the reason we have to raise the debt ceiling is for obligations that have already been incurred. votes that have already been taken. For example. two wars. an unfunded prescription drug bill. and the reality of two tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the very wealthy. Now. I would urge my colleagues to read the bill. The section the gentleman referred to dealt with the sequestration. Theres nothing in the bill that says not to cut Medicare or Social Security as part of reaching those targets. In fact. theyre going to implant in the Constitution of the United States a spending level that we have not achieved since just after we passed Medicare. So what they would do through this is call for deep cuts in Medicare. The numbers in this particular statutory provision track the budget that the Republicans passed off this floor. The CBO analyzed that. It looked at the impact on Medicare beneficiaries. and its in a letter dated April 5. 2011. to the chairman of the Budget Committee. pointing out that under the Republican budget plan. Medicare beneficiaries will end up paying about 60 percent of the costs compared to 25 to 30 percent under Medicare today. Its interesting that Members of Congress have written into the statute provisions that say for Members of Congress. we will have about 72 to 75 percent of our premiums and costs covered when were saying to seniors on Medicare. lets put in these spending caps that will require you to pay a whole lot more. With that. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio . a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. again. the President has said two things: Number one. America pays its bills for the obligations that its incurred. Number two. he put a plan on the table to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion. again. $3 in spending cuts for $1 of revenue. I would point out to the gentleman. the President was very explicit. He said that the revenue component would begin in January of 2013. and in the meantime. hes actually proposed extending the payroll tax for another year during the year 2012 so that consumers would have more money to generate more demand in the economy. which is very fragile right now. But make no mistake: Our longterm challenge is getting the economy going again and reducing our deficit. and the economy needs that to happen. and it should happen in a balanced way. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I agree with much of what the gentleman said. especially that we need to take responsibility for our own actions. And thats why nobody should be taking the position that we wont pay the bills of the United States of America unless we get a plan thats 100 percent our way. American families cant say to the mortgage company. you know what? I dont like the way youre handling this. Im not going to pay you. or whatever. And so we need to take that same approach. Decisions have been made in the past. Were obligated to pay the bill for those decisions. Lets not try and duck those responsibilities for our own actions. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan . the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I would again remind my colleagues that the last time we were running a budget surplus was during the years of the Clinton administration. During that period of time our spending was at a level that was higher than the limitation in here. and we were paying our obligations. What this would do would create an antimajoritarian. antidemocratic provision in the Constitution that says you cant balance your budget at 19 percent of GDP. even if thats the will of the American people. even if its how we did it back during the Clinton administration. Mr. Speaker. I yield 21/2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida . a member of the Budget Committee.
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2560. which attempts to manipulate the Constitution in order to impose a Ryan budget plan on steroids. This is yet another thinly veiled attempt by our colleagues across the aisle to end Medicare as we know it while refusing to even consider ending illadvised tax breaks for millionaires. It is crucial that the American people understand that this plan would require even deeper cuts than under the Ryan Republican plan we saw in April. This means deeper cuts to investments in education. clean energy. and increased costs for our seniors. President Obama has vowed to veto this bill. which ends the Medicare guarantee. And. incredulously. the gentleman from Florida. who represents thousands of Medicare beneficiaries. as do I. is supportive of this plan that would increase costs for Medicare beneficiaries. unbelievable from a Member from south Florida. It slashes Medicaid and critical investments essential to winning the future in favor of protecting tax breaks for Big Oil. millionaires and companies who ship American jobs overseas. Achieving a solution to Americas fiscal challenges is absolutely an economic necessity. but the only way to achieve a real solution is through shared sacrifice. We cant ask our seniors. working Americans. and students to bear the burden of our deficits when were asking nothing of corporations. special interests. and the wealthiest few. Incredibly. our friends across the aisle wont even put that on the table. The nonpartisan CBO. Congressional Budget Office. has said that the number one policy decision that brought us to the need to prevent the Nation from defaulting on our debt for the first time in history were the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that disproportionately benefited the wealthiest Americans. Yet here we are again rewarding the most privileged at the expense of our working families and our seniors. the bedrock of our society. Cut. cap. and balance may make for a great sound bite. but it would have a devastating impact on our economy and American seniors. It is clearly more like "duck. dodge. and dismantle." For the sake of our economy. it is essential that we move beyond politics as usual and take action to reduce our Nations deficit and get our fiscal house in order. On behalf of the 102.000 Medicare beneficiaries in my home district and on behalf of all middle class Americans. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to this reckless bill and pass a balanced plan that engages us all in shared sacrifice to solve our Nations debt crisis.
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I know that the gentleman is new to the body. but there were lots of decisions made over the past years for which the bills are coming due now. For example. in 2005 when our Republican colleagues headed up the House. we passed a prescription drug addon to Medicare which was not funded. not one penny. It was all put on the credit card. Two wars were put on the credit card. and again. tax cuts in 2001. 2003 that disproportionately benefited the very wealthy that created this gap. So I agree with the gentleman. It is time. sir. to take responsibility for our actions. And it is interesting to hear some folks say that it is a sacrifice for us to have to pay bills for decisions that were made in the past. Now. yes. we need to get the deficit under control. And again. the President of the United States has put on the table a balanced approach over 10 years. $3 of spending cuts to $1 of revenue. And again. our Republican colleagues have walked away from the table because they dont want to raise one penny of revenue from closing corporate tax loopholes. Just to be clear. the Presidents plan would extend middle class tax cuts beyond 2013. The Presidents plan would say lets extend the payroll tax cut for 2012. But he says lets get serious about our deficit and lets do it in a balanced way with shared responsibility. With that. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia . a member of the Ways and Means Committee who knows a lot about the importance of shared responsibility.
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I would just ask my Republican colleagues to consider why they want to write a provision in the Constitution of the United States that would make it harder to shut down a special interest tax loophole for the purpose of reducing the deficit for our children and grandchildren. I now yield 4 minutes to our very distinguished Democratic whip and my colleague from the State of Maryland
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

This is a time for choosing. We have to reduce our deficit. We have to get the budget in the balance. The question is. how we do this? And we believe that it is a corruption of the Constitution to write into the Constitution itself a provision that says a majority vote can cut Medicare and Social Security but you need a twothirds undemocratic vote to close a corporate tax loophole for the purpose of reducing the deficit. I yield 1 minute to gentlewoman from California .
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I would hazard a guess that Thomas Jefferson would not want to write into the Constitution of the United States antidemocratic provisions that said you need twothirds in order to close special interest tax loopholes for the purpose of deficit reduction or to say that were going to decide now. for all time. that we have to balance our budget at 18 percent of GDP rather than some other number that may be the will of the American people. Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. once again. the President had a plan to reduce the deficit by about $4 trillion over 10 years-$3 in cuts. $1 in revenue. Our Republican colleagues walked away from the table because they didnt want $1 of deficit reduction from closing special interest tax loopholes. With that. I yield 31/4 minutes to the distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee. the gentleman from New York .
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. again. the choice is not whether we put in place a plan to reduce the deficit and balance the budget. The issue is how we do that. That is the difference here. With that. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I would remind my colleagues that this provision that theyre talking about. the constitutional proposal that came out of the Judiciary Committee. would prohibit the Congress from balancing the budget at 13 percent of GDP expenditures. It would say you cannot make that choice. It would also say you have to reach a twothirds hurdle to reduce the special interest tax breaks for the purpose of deficit reduction. So we keep hearing about this balanced budget amendment without any mention from our colleagues that theyve inserted these two devices into the Constitution that would limit our ability to balance the budget in a balanced way. With that. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. thats right. A few years ago during the Clinton administration when they took a balanced approach to deficit reduction. we did run surpluses. With that. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas .
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I thank the distinguished member of the Budget Committee as well for the great work that he has been doing. As I listened to my friends discuss this question of being responsible. I want to at least announce breaking news that our friends in the other body have come up with a semisolution on revenue and on the question of how we would cut. They are seeking to be responsible. and today in this body. we are not. I heard a tutorial about the green light and the red light. which. as a Member. you understand green is "yes" and "no" comes up red. What the red will mean is to stop the insanity. to stop the loss of our moral compass. the responsibility to pay Americas bills. What the green light will mean is that America. in fact. would not be paying the bills of our families. We wouldnt be paying Social Security. interest rates would spike. the U.S. dollar would decline. and our credit would literally go out the door. Being without responsibility is what we are planning to do. Then we will lose the ability to pay for the Medicare of American Seniors and would no longer keep Americas hospitals open and doctors paid. So dont be fooled by the green light tutorial. We. frankly. are going to lose our way. Well close hospitals. We wont have the ability to provide for our seniors. and these are the very persons that my colleagues over here believe that they are helping. But the main point that I want to emphasize very quickly is that the Constitution of the United States already says that the validity of the public debt of the United States in the 14th Amendment. section 4. shall not be questioned. Let me tell you today that a balanced budget amendment will destroy the United States. and it will not allow us to pay for those in need. Tap dance. losers club. bust the benefits. Thats what this bill is. Tap dance. losers club. and bust the benefits. That is what will happen to all of us. Americans like the friends and families of our military personnel will suffer.
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. it does not throw Americans a lifeline to write into the Constitution of the United States a provision that creates a preference for cutting Medicare and Social Security over cutting subsidies for oil companies. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I would point out that when Ronald Reagan was President. he raised the debt ceiling 17 times and specifically wrote to the Congress. saying that failure to pay our bills would jeopardize the creditworthiness and trustworthiness of the United States. Lets not make that mistake. President Reagan didnt want to make that mistake. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania .
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I still fail to see how it helps our kids and helps our seniors to write into the Constitution of the United States a bias in favor of cutting Medicare and cutting Social Security and cutting education before cutting special interest tax breaks. They would require only a majority to cut Social Security and Medicare. but twothirds to get rid of special interest tax breaks for the purpose of reducing the deficit. Thats why this is a question of priorities and a question of balance. How do we reduce the deficit? How do we get it into balance? I yield 11/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York .
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Heres the question. As you know. this requires that we later pass a constitutional amendment. In fact. between now and August 2 we have to pass a constitutional amendment which. of course. requires twothirds in the House. Well find out by later this evening whether or not this bill will even get twothirds in the House.
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

The point is. this bill says you cant continue to pay the bills unless. between now and August 2 or whenever-
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

We pass a constitutional amendment with the provisions that you have in here. And so it will be a test today whether you can get the twothirds to change the Constitution in the ways youre talking about.
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Ive already indicated that there is a conversation to be had with respect to what is a reasonable approach. but that is absolutely not what were dealing with in this particular bill as weve debated.
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

We believe. as the President said. the best way for us to balance the budget is to get together and hammer out a deal sooner rather than later.
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. if what the gentleman is saying is that we think we should get rid of a lot of the pork barrel spending in the Tax Code. whether its oil subsidies or whether its for corporate jets. yes. we think we should get rid of some of that stuff for the purpose of reducing the deficit.
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

We have a lot less time. otherwise. I would. If the Speaker would tell us how much time is remaining.
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I would urge my colleagues to look at the Congressional Budget Office analysis of the impact of the Republican budget on senior citizens on Medicare. Essentially what they do is give seniors a raw deal compared to what Members of Congress get themselves. a raw deal in a big way. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. American families dont have the luxury of saying if we dont get things 100 percent our way. we wont pay our family bills. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I agree with a lot of what the gentleman said. I would say that the President has put a plan on the table to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over about 10 years. It does it with $3 in spending cuts to $1 in revenue. That approach apparently was rejected by our colleagues. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman. If what you mean by protecting the status quo is meaning that I am opposed to actually manipulating the Constitution of the United States to make it harder to reduce special interest tax breaks. yes. I dont think we should change the Constitution that way. But if you mean we should-
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I think what will defy the logic of the American people is why our Republican colleagues are going to write into the Constitution of the United States a provision that says a majority vote is needed to cut Medicare. a majority vote is needed to cut Social Security. a majority vote is needed to cut education. but you need twothirds vote to cut subsidies for Big Oil companies. you need a twothirds vote to get rid of subsidies for corporate jets. That is something that defies logic. You would also write into the Constitution a provision that says even if you balanced the budget at 19 percent of GDP or some other level so that we can meet the needs of Social Security and Medicare. you wouldnt be able to do that. You would constitutionally prohibit that kind of balanced budget. one that meets the needs of Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. That defies logic. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. there are some things that we want to change. and there are some things we dont want to change. One of the things we dont want to change capriciously is the Constitution of the United States of America. I think many of us think it is a corruption to the Constitution to write in provisions that say you can only balance the budget the way the Republicans want to balance the budget. you can only do it by capping things at 18 percent even if that means deep cuts to Social Security and deep cuts to Medicare. We think its a corruption of the Constitution to write into the founding document a provision that says its easier to cut Medicare and Social Security than corporate tax breaks. That is in here. We keep hearing 49 out of 50 States. Fortynine out of 50 States do not write those kind of provisions into their State Constitutionsa very few doand for good reason: Theyre bad ideas. theyre bad ideas now. and they will be bad ideas in the future which would constrain a Congress from balancing the budget in a way that reflects the will of the American people. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I rise in opposition to the drastic cuts to Social Security. Medicare. and other crucial Federal programs that this Cut. Cap. and Balance Act would force on the American people. The Cut. Cap. and Balance Act takes our Nation closer to default by holding the debt ceiling hostage until Congress passes a constitutional amendment to limit Federal spending to 18 percent of GDP. The last time Federal spending was below 18 percent of GDP was 1966. Even under Ronald Reagan. the Federal spending averaged over 22 percent of GDP. Theres almost no conceivable way to revert spending back to the 1960s levels without sharp cuts in every program. including Medicare and Social Security. In order to reduce Federal spending to 18 percent of GDP. every Federal program. including Social Security and Medicare. would need to be cut by 25 percent. Faced with the need to increase the debt ceiling in 1987. President Reagan called on Congress to raise the ceiling and said failure to do so would threaten those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. create instability in the financial markets. and cause the Federal deficit to soar. Its funny. I agree with President Reagan. Our last balanced budget was in 1999 and 2000. the last years of the Democratic President Bill Clinton. Since 2001 we had 9/11. federalizing airport security. war in Iraq. Afghanistan. war on terror. a prescription drug plan for seniors. and 2001 and 2003 tax cutsnone of these were paid forall went to the National debt. We had a balanced annual budget without cutting Medicare or Social Security in 1999 and 2000. It is time for this chamber to end the political theater. to take the necessary steps to avoid default. and I urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous legislation.
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I would again remind my colleagues that the last time the Federal Government budget was in surplus was during the Clinton administration. at a time when they took a balanced approach to deficit reductionunfortunately. one that has been rejected by our colleagues in the communications and conversations with the President of the United States. who has put forward a proposal for $3 in spending cuts. for $1 in revenue. again. generated by closing special interest loopholes and by returning to the rates that were in place for the very top income earners. rates that were in place during the Clinton administration. which was the last time we were in surplus. With that. I yield 3 minutes to a member of the Judiciary Committee. the gentleman from Virginia . who has been a real leader on this debate.
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I just remind my colleagues that only seven States placed both the supermajority requirements and the caps that this would place in the Constitution of the United States. With that. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois . who has been a leader and fighter in this debate.