macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2011-01-24
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank my colleague. Here we go again. As my colleague said. if this were a serious proposal on the budget. you would have a budget number in this document. There is no number in this document. Look. on opening day our Republican colleagues passed a measure that immediately gutted the payasyougo rule that we have in this body and did an end run around the payasyougo law. A few days later. we figured out why they did that. because they added $230 billion to the deficit over 10 years and $1.4 trillion over 20 years. Those arent my numbers. those are the numbers of the independent. nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office with respect to the impact of their effort to repeal health care reform instead of doing what we should be doing. which is focusing on jobs. That measure on opening day also did another thing. It gave the chairman of the Budget Committee unprecedented power to unilaterally pick the budget ceilings. the spending ceilings for this entire Congress. No input from anybody else. no debate. no vote. So all of us thought when this new measure was coming up maybe now were going to have some accountability. Maybe this body will have an opportunity to vote on the very important spending ceilings for the United States Congress and for the government. But lo and behold hold. when you look at the resolution. theres no number. Wheres the beef? And I have to say to my colleagues that. if you want transparency. why are you hiding the ball? Is the number going to be 100 billion? Is it going to be 80 billion? Is it going to be 60 billion? We hear all different numbers in the press out there. and they havent put it in the measure. Instead. theyve said once again. were going to allow the chairman of the Budget Committee to decide. Now. I have great respect for the chairman of the Budget Committee. but none of us should be contracting out our votes and our responsibilities to another Member of Congress. We shouldnt ever do that. Certainly we shouldnt be doing that on something as important as setting the overall budget and spending ceilings for the United States Government. Thats irresponsible. And yet thats what this rule will ask every Member to docontract out his or her vote to one person. So why are we doing this? Why are we bringing a budget resolution to the floor with no number? As my colleague said. timing is everything here. This is an opportunity to have a press release tomorrow. the day the Presidents going to deliver the State of the Union address. to create the illusion that theyre making progress on the budget number. without a number. Now. we heard from our colleagues on the Republican side. Well. you know what? We have to wait for the Congressional Budget Office to tell us what their projections are so we can figure out the magnitude of the reductions.
Date: 2011-01-24
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

We asked them. Why dont we have the number? They said. Well. weve got to wait for CBO. We are pleased to hear the newfound respect for the CBO numbers. but heres my point. Thats going to happen within 24 hours of tomorrow. Twentyfour hours. We could have a budget resolution with the beef. with the number. so everyone could decide what the ceilings are going to be. No. weve got to do it tomorrow. Why? State of the Union address. Great press release. Now. Ive heard my colleagues say theyve got to do this because there was nothing in place in the House from a budget perspective. Well. in fact. the House last year passed a budget enforcement act. Ive got it right here. Its got a number in it. Its got a number in it like these budget documents have.
Date: 2011-01-24
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Listen. what we are doing today is the ultimate example of deeming. We are passing a resolution that deems. in advance. the passage of a number that we dont even know. and its going to be decided by one person. We are deeming that individual all the authority. And the shame of it is that thats a process that I think we all recognize is flawed. And yet this is deeming on steroids. So I would suggest that we come up with a real number. put some beef on this. have a real argument. and let every Member vote and take responsibility.
Date: 2011-01-24
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank my colleague. Mr. Speaker. as those of us on this side of the aisle have said. we need to focus our efforts on job creation and getting the economy going. I know that the chairman said that is what this bill is all about. but lets look at what the Bipartisan Commission on Deficit and Debt Reduction said. They said two things: one. absolutely we need to put our country on a sustainable path toward deficit reduction. and we should work together to get that done. But they also said another thing. They said draconian cuts right now would. in fact. reverse the economic progress that we are making. and that it would threaten the fragile economic recovery and it would hurt job creation in this country. which is one reason we would like to know what the number is. and I would yield immediately if you can tell me whether it is going to be $100 billion this year. $80 billion. $60 billion. whatever it will be. because there is no number. And if youve got it. it should have been in here. Let me get to the other issue the gentleman raised. We have pointed out that if you do the $100 billion cut. which is what you all talked about in the fall. right now in the immediate moment. it results in approximately 20 percent acrosstheboard cuts. Now. all of you say. whenever we raise specifics like cutting research for treatment and cures at NIH. no. no. no. were not going to cut that. Then we say. okay. youre going to cut the FBI budget because that is not a part of the protected budget. No. no. no. you say. were not going to cut that. You keep moving stuff off the table. You know what that does to the rest of the budget? It means it goes from a 20 percent cut to 30 percent to 40. Who knows what it is. But the point we are making is you havent given us the starting point number. so you dont have a clue. and of course we dont either. But you dont have a clue because you havent come up with a number. And we know there has been a lot of discussion on your side of the aisleits no secretabout what that number will be. you amended this rules provision. but if youve got the number. put it in here now. and if youre going to get it the day after tomorrow. on Wednesday. wait 24 hours. and let this body vote on it.
Date: 2011-01-24
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for his very useful guidance. but let me just tell you this: The fact of the matter is. in the spring. we will begin the budget process in the Budget Committee. We are now dealing with fiscal year 2011. As the chairman knows. there was a budget resolution in effect at the end of the last Congress that had a number in it. You chose not to extend it. Now. for the first time ever. you have asked this Houseevery Memberto surrender his or her responsibility on the number to one person. That is budget malpractice. and it also cedes our responsibility as Members on both sides of the aisle.
Date: 2011-01-24
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

My question. Mr. Chairman. is simple: Do you think it makes a difference to the process whether the number that ends up being here is $120 billion. which may mean a 30 percent acrosstheboard cut. or do you think it matters that its $100 billion or $80 billion?
Date: 2011-01-24
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I want to thank the gentleman from California very much. I want to add my words of appreciation for having the opportunity to join you tonight and to join the minority whip. still my majority leader. Mr. HOYER. who coined the phrase. as we were beginning to speak to the American people. of how important it is for us to go back to our roots. I am also delighted to be able to be here with the gentleman from Minnesota. the gentleman from New Jersey. and the gentleman from New York. But I want to spin it in a different way. I want us to reclaim Americas genius. I could go back. of course. to the Model T or maybe even to Thomas Edison. with the light bulb. There is an excitement about being able to build. create. and inventfrankly. when I came to Congress. I wondered why we were not making submarines anymore. As you well know. we had a shipbuilding industry in Virginia and. of course. in Mississippibecause genius also is part of building. You must have the kind of technology. the kind of expertise to make it the best equipment you possibly can have. Thats what I sense that we have lost. and there is an excitement when young people can be part of the genius of America. I come from Houston. Texas. We are one of the new starts in light rail. and we have been trying to get there for about 30 years. We are just about there when we would be on the precipice of funding for light rail. Yet at the same time. as we talk about putting tracks down. there is a technology of the new light rail cars. We need to. in fact. build those cars here in the United States. Many people view Houston as the energy capital of the world. You dont know that we have wind and solar businesses that are headquartered in my congressional district. The point is. of course. that the turbines. unfortunately. are not built here. My point is. when the President so appropriately makes the point about investing in America and also of building infrastructure. he is speaking the language of capturing the genius of America. I would just hold this up because I think this is an example of where we are going. We are going onward and upward. The red is the past administration. which is when no jobs were created or maybe a minimum of a million. We can see we have had some hard times. We dont ignore the fact that we have been in a hard. hard recession. But look where were going. How can we go backwards? How can we not create more jobs? We in Houston would really like to be part of not sending our tax dollars overseas. We want to be able to build buses. railcars. ferryboats. submarines. and largesized ships. if you will. because that is capturing the genius of America. So let me thank the gentleman for yielding. I am hoping the President will indicate to us. Mr. HOYER and to all who are here on the floor. that he is going to go forward on his investment in infrastructure and in recapturing the genius of America.
Date: 2011-01-24
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Thank you so very much. I just thought of something that I did want to add to the discussion. First of all. GE is an inherently American company. so I applaud the selection that allows a creator to move forward to create jobs for all of America. But I want to keep in mind that manufacturing is the employer of all peoplewomen. persons with college educations. those that are in the trades. men. and young people. So families can be hired by manufacturing. And it is particularly important to me that women have the equal opportunity. particularly since we passed the pay equity bill in the last Congress. But. finally. I also look forward to small and medium minority womenowned businesses partnering with large businesses to create jobs because small businesses and minorityowned businesses can create jobs and are part of the infrastructure of jobs. So if the President speaks tomorrow. I hope he speaks for all of America. that all will have an opportunity to retrieve the dream by the opportunity to make it in America. I thank the gentleman for having us this evening.
Date: 2011-01-25
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank my colleague. Here we are a day later. Yesterday we asked our colleagues. whats the number going to be? Whats going to be the spending ceiling for this Congress and for the United States Government? They didnt have it yesterday. and we dont yet have it today. Its a budget resolution without a budget number. Now weve heard a lot of talk about what happened last year. What this budget resolution relates to is 2011. In fact. this body voted last year on a Budget Enforcement Act. I have it right here in my hand. And it set budget ceilings. It had a real number. Some people voted for it. some people voted against it. but this body did what it always does when it makes decisions of this magnitude. We took accountability for it. Now you have a resolution that violates the pledge of transparency because it doesnt have a single number in it. and it violates the pledge of accountability because youre asking every other Member of this body to contract out his or her vote to one person. Now I have great respect for the chairman of the Budget Committee. And I. too. congratulate him on being selected to give the response to the State of the Union address. This isnt about a particular individual. Its about all of us taking responsibility for a major decision. And what this resolution does is contracts out that responsibility. It doesnt have a number. We dont know if its going to be $100 billion. We dont know if its going to be $80 billion. We dont know if its going to be $40 billion. We dont know if its going to be the number that the Republican Study Committee wants. which the majority leader said good things about. We dont know. What we do know is this. that the bipartisan deficit and debt reduction commission told us two things: Number one. we need to act now to put this country on a fiscally sustainable path. and we should do that by working together. They also said another thing. that deep immediate cuts beyond what had been put in place and recommended by the fiscal commission would hurt the economy when its in a very fragile state and risk throwing more Americans out of work. That would be a terrible mistake. And yet our colleagues want us to make a decision to vote on this without telling us what the number is. So when we asked what the number was. they said. were waiting for the Congressional Budget Office. When will the Congressional Budget Office have its numbers? Tomorrow. 24 hours from now. Then we can do the right thing. we can see what the cuts will be. and we can make a decision as a body taking responsibility for this decision. Why is it we are not waiting 24 hours? Well its pretty obvious. A little later today. the President of the United States will be here to deliver the State of the Union address. and instead of being serious about this number. they want to deliver a press release. That is what this is about without a number. Otherwise we would wait 24 hours and our friends could tell us what that number would be. You are asking this body to buy a pig in a poke. And the reason it is so serious is that numbers have consequences.
Date: 2011-01-25
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

And my friend from Massachusetts talked about this earlier. whether it is $100 billion or $80 billion or $20 billion. those numbers all have consequences because on the other side of the aisle when we say. well. are you going to be cutting research to find cures and treatments for cancer or diabetes. no. were not going to cut that. Are you going to cut the FBI agents involved in antiterrorism efforts? No. we would never want to cut that. What are you going to cut? And the magnitude of those cuts and the negative impact on jobs and the economy will be determined by what. by the number in this bill. a number that we dont get to vote on that you are giving the chairman of the Budget Committee sole authority to pick out of a hat.
Date: 2011-01-25
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Speaker. we just heard from the chairman of the Appropriations Committee that there was no ceiling for 2011 in place. I am going to make a copy and ask the pages to distribute this. This is the Budget Enforcement Act for last year. for fiscal year 2011. and there you have the budget ceilings. whereas what you are proposing is a piece of paper that doesnt set the budget ceilings and doesnt contain any of the numbers in it. I would just ask the chairman of the Rules Committee this: During the hearing. you said were going to wait for CBO. CBOs numbers are coming tomorrow. Tomorrow are you going to have a number for us?
Date: 2011-01-25
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts. I consider the gentleman from California a colleague that Ive known for a good while. and I know that there are certainly good intentions. but I always believe that when youre elected to this powerful body that represents over 300 million Americans. as the census has given us new numbers of how many Americans we have the privilege of representing. you do have to speak about the future. When you begin to talk about generic numbers going back to 2008 levels. you are speaking generally without substance because it is our commitment to be able to move America forward. And I hope the President will stay in the blue column because you can see the red column in the past administration: there was no job creation. So when you talk about reducing the deficit. it must be with a plan. it must be with substance. Because you can repeal with no substance. And I would just raise the question: Do we want a Nation that does not invest in education? Do we want a Nation that does not help our businesses invest to create jobs? And do we want a Nation that says that security. the FBI. the DEAsomeone called in today and talked about how important it was to ensure that we had the right kind of law enforcement. Or do we want to tell those who are on Social Security who have worked. literally worked. or are disabled. that there are no more dollars for them because we have just without any guidance gone back to 2008 levels? I would just ask that we move this country forward. Mr. Speaker. and I ask that we invest in America.
Date: 2011-01-25
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

of T Speaker. on rollcall vote No. 2 present. I would have voted "na Westmoreland Whitfield Wilson (SC) Wittman Wolf Womack Woodall Yoder Young (AK) Young (FL) Young (IN) Pallone Pascrell Pastor (AZ) Pelosi Perlmutter Peters Pingree (ME) Polls Price (NC) Rahall Rangel Reyes Richardson Richmond Rothman (NJ) RoybalAllard Ruppersberger Rush Ryan (OH) Sanchez. Linda T. Sanchez. Loretta Sarbanes Schiff Schwartz Scott (VA) Scott. David Serrano
Date: 2011-01-26
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. last night. President Obama said that the U.S. stands with the people of Tunisia and supports the democratic aspirations of the people. That has not always been true. however. Weve stood for far too long with the undemocratic and the dictatorial Ben Ali. the President of Tunisia. And it is time that we stand. as the President said. with the people of Tunisia now and support their democratic aspirations. The U.S. gets another chance to stand with the democratic aspirations of another people. the people of Egypt. against the autocratic. dictatorial. and undemocratic leadership of Hosni Mubarak. For too long. the U.S. has stood against the people of Egypt seeking a more democratic country and a more democratic government. Every election has been rigged by the Mubarak government. and the state emergency power laws have been extended so that people would be rounded up so his viable opponents would be thrown into jail and political parties would be outlawed. The time has come to stop this. The time has come for the United States to tell the Mubarak government that this election has to be free and open. The sole purpose of the election cannot be to pass on a great country to the son of the current leader in spite of the democratic aspirations of the Egyptian people.
Date: 2011-01-26
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

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