macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2012-03-27
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chair. I rise in opposition to H.R. 3309. the FCC Process Reform Act. Although the bills proponents say the legislation is drafted to make the FCC operate more quickly and efficiently. I believe the bill will have the opposite effect. On the surface H.R. 3309 appears innocuousdirecting the FCC to do what it already does: analyze the potential harm its rulemaking might have on markets. public institutions and consumers. The problem is that under this bill. FCC procedure would change to require it to formally file its analysis before issuing its ruling. That analysis would be subject to unending litigation and the additional level of procedure will significantly impair the FCCs flexibility to respond in realtime to challenges and expose the FCC to unnecessarily burdensome litigation. This change would hurt companies and consumers alike. If this bill becomes law. all of the FCCs rulemaldng will be subjected to judicial review. Corporations seeking to avoid oversight would have new grounds to sue the FCC just because they disagree with the agencys reasoning. The FCC could be tied up in litigation for years debating whether a costbenefitanalysis they did was thorough enough or whether sufficient regard was paid to the potential impact of a rule on companys share of the marketplace. One expert said that it could take 15 years just for the courts to clarify the meaning of the provisions in the bill. Additionally. the bill impedes the FCCs ability to accept publicly beneficial commitments made by transacting parties during a merger. For example. if two large internet service providers wanted to merge and promised to provide increased access to lowincome consumers in order to address FCC concerns about underserved areas. under the bill. the FCC could not accept that commitment. Mr. Chair. I oppose this bill because by introducing new and unnecessary procedures into the FCCs process. the legislation will limit the FCCs ability to exercise its statutory duty to safeguard the public interest. And. if this bill becomes law. the FCC would be reduced to little more than a reporting agency for Congress. The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired. Pursuant to the rule. the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. printed in the bill. shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5minute rule and shall be considered read. The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is as follows: H.R. 3309 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled.
Date: 2012-03-27
Speaker: AL GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I have an amendment at the desk. Mr. Chairman. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Page 22. after line 24. insert the following (and redesignate the subsequent section accordingly):
Date: 2012-03-27
Speaker: AL GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief because I understand that time is of the essence. Ive had an opportunity to work with my colleagues across the aisle. and our staffs have worked together. Mr. Chairman. this amendment would simply make it clear that the FCC will not be impeded in any way as it relates to notifying the public about dangerous conditions. We all know about the hurricanes that hit the gulf coast and that we have tornadoes in other areas of the country. This is a very simple. commonsense amendment. I believe my colleague will agree with me. and I dont believe there will be a need for a vote.
Date: 2012-03-27
Speaker: AL GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Thank you. And reclaiming my time. I am grateful for my colleague and the staff members that worked with us. And with that said. Mr. Chairman. I dont believe there will be a request for a vote if the amendment is accepted. I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas .
Date: 2012-03-27
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. today I was unavoidably detained on the following votes: On rollcall 134. the Crowley amendment. I would have voted "aye." On rollcall vote 135. the Eshoo amendment. I would have voted "aye." On rollcall vote No. 136. the Owens amendment. I would have voted "aye."
Date: 2012-03-27
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I was unavoidably detained yesterday evening on business. On H.R. 2779. rollcall vote No. 127. I would have voted "yea". H.R. 2682. rollcall vote No. 128. I would have voted "yea". and rollcall vote No. 129. I would have voted "no."
Date: 2012-03-27
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. today a number of postmasters from the United States Postal Service were in my office. and they had a very good idea about how important the U.S. Postal Service is. the jobs that it creates. and how we should find solutions. In my own community. heavily occupied by seniors. they cried out when post offices were closed that were close to their community. where they were able to walk and secure their checks. Some of them like to come directly to handle their business. We are better than closing down post offices in rural and urban America. and were better than not finding a solution to employ hardworking Americans in an efficient and effective manner. I look forward to working with our postal family. those hardworking Americans all across America who have been the good Samaritans to determine whether our seniors were in need of bringing medicine to homebound patients. bringing information and helping small businesses. We can work to solve this problem efficiently and effectively.
Date: 2012-03-27
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I rise today to honor John Sullivan the House Parliamentarian. who is retiring after serving 28 years. John has dedicated his career to public service. Prior to arriving on Capitol Hill. John served our nation for 10 years in the Air Force. I have known John for nearly two decades. In that time. I have often been impressed by his indepth knowledge of House Floor procedure and the legislative process. John has a calm. knowledgeable. and warm demeanor. It is no small feat to be wellliked by Members of both parties. Debate on the House Floor can be contentious at times. however. it is a positive reflection on Johns expertise that he been able to consistently offer his assistance to Members in a manner that balances the rights of Members from both sides of the aisle. John. I hope you enjoy your retirement.
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. many people are smiling about the argument in the Supreme Court on the Affordable Care Act. ObamaCare. but I will tell you those children born with sickle cell and asthma are praying that ObamaCare survives. Those elderly persons who fall into the doughnut hole with Medicare part D are praying for ObamaCare to survive. I am as well. Mr. Speaker. because I believe in a humanitarian approach in service to our Nation: Help those who cannot help themselves. As we look forward to a vigorous debate on this Republican budget. I hope that we stand together against ending Medicare. destroying jobs. and moving forward on the lopsided help that we give to the wealthy over the poor.
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. that was an interesting colloquy. especially given the fact that the Senate has passed a bipartisan transportation bill. again. a bill that has very broad support that. if we took it up today in the House. we could get it passed right now. and it would be good for the economy and good for the fact that we have 17 percent unemployment in the construction industry. As I remarked earlier. the Republican budget that were considering would actually cut transportation funding spending outlays by 46 percent next year. That is not good for the economy. and I hope this body will overturn that. With that. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. over the past several months. in hearing after hearing in the Budget Committee. we have heard one recurring theme from our expert witnesses. Chairman Bernanke said it. Director Elmendorf said it. Acting Director Zients said it. and Secretary Geithner reaffirmed that the draconian. reckless cuts proposed by the Republican majority. and made evident in their budget proposal that we are considering on the House floor today. will create an enormous headwind for our economy. Yet. here we are again. Yes. here we are considering the same Republican budget plan as last year. hearing the same arguments from Chairman RYAN and the Republican leadership. As I said last week in committee. I feel like its "Groundhog Day" all over again. but Bill Murray is nowhere in sight. and this is no comedy. In all seriousness. the harmful spending cuts incorporated into this budget proposal go further than simply damaging a fragile recovery. These cuts pull the rug out from under our most vulnerable: our seniors. our children. and those with serious illness. Democrats reject the idea that the way to deal with rising health care costs is to give seniors a voucher to purchase private insurance and then tell them to figure out how to keep their own costs down. Democrats believe that we cannot solve our budget challenges simply by shifting health costs and risks onto people who are least able to bear them: seniors. disabled individuals. and poor families. Last week I offered an amendment in the Budget Committee that no one in this body should ever have to offer. My amendment would have prevented reckless and shameful Medicaid cuts to seniors in nursing homes. Like all of the other amendments offered by my Democratic colleagues. this amendment was rejected on a partyline vote. This is simply unconscionable. As a Member of Congress representing a large number of seniors in south Florida. I can tell you that the House Republican budget would be devastating for seniors and older Americans. This Republican "path to poverty" would pass like a tornado through Americas nursing homes. where millions of Americas seniors receive longterm and endoflife care. Sixty percent of Americans in nursing homes are on Medicaid. so cuts to Medicaid would have a dramatically negative impact on our seniors. The Federal Government made a commitment to each and every one of us that when we got older we wouldnt need to live in poverty or force our children into poverty in order to care for us.
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

For decades we have looked to Medicare and Medicaid with the expectation that the Federal Government would honor its commitment. Now. under this budget plan. Republicans are trying to back out of our commitment to seniors. We cannot go back on our promise to the Greatest Generation. There is a better way forward. I ask my colleagues to think about our seniors and our most vulnerable and reject the Republican budget plan.
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. a couple of points. The bipartisan bill that came over from the Senate would provide funding fully paid for. offset for 18 months. So you could avoid the big 46 percent cut next year thats in the Republican budget and make sure folks out there who are looking for jobs in the construction industry could get to work. Secondly. with respect to Medicare. you have two fundamentally different approaches. The approach we had in the Affordable Care Act was to say we need to modernize the Medicare system by changing incentives. So we reward and incentivize the quality of care. the value of care. not the volume of care which drove up costs. What we do not do is offload the risk of those rising health care costs onto seniors. Now the board. the IPAB the gentleman referred to. is specifically prohibited. and I have the language right here. from including any recommendations to ration health care. raise revenue or Medicare beneficiary premiums. whereas the Republican plan expressly works by offloading those risks and those costs onto seniors. A very different approach. With that. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio .
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

The gentleman is absolutely right about the need to look out for future generations and the issue of the deficit. What I always find staggering is the refusal to close one single loopholejust one pennyfor the purposes of reducing the deficit so that we can address that issue of the deficits in future generations. With that. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania . who has been a great member of the Budget Committee.
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. the difference between the Presidents plan and the Republican budget. the difference between the Democratic alternative and the Republican budget. is that we take a balanced approach. I think everybody understands that spending cuts have to be part of the solution. This Congress acted last summer. cut $1 trillion out of the budget. But the President and the Democratic alternative also understand what bipartisan groups all understand. which is that the only credible way to reduce our deficits is through a combination of spending cuts and cutting some of the tax breaks to special interests and asking millionaires to pay more. I keep hearing our Republican colleagues come to the floor lamenting the large deficits and debt which we all agree we need to get under control and then refusing to cut one special interest loophole for the purpose of reducing the deficit. asking a millionaire to contribute one more penny for the purpose of reducing the deficit. Now with respect to the issue of Medicare. the reason its not premium support is. it doesnt provide constant support to the senior on Medicare. Over time. seniors purchasing power of this voucher will become less and less while the costs go up and up. I would point out. again. that Members of Congress have for themselves a plan. this green line. where the purchasing power of their health plan stays constant. even as health prices increase. But this red line here is what they would do to seniors on Medicare. Now Ive heard it said a couple of times now that the President allows Medicare to go bankrupt. Mr. Chairman. here is a chart that the chairman of the Budget Committee. Mr. RYAN. presented in the Budget Committee. The black line here is the trajectory that they claim for their plan in terms of cost containment. The blue line is what they acknowledge the President calls for. As you can see. the tracks are very different. This red line is projected cost increase by the Congressional Budget Office. The difference between the approaches is that the Republican plan puts the risk of being wrong here on the senior. whereas the plan we put forward says we need to change the incentive structures. to change the incentives in a way so that providers provide more costefficient care rather than putting that risk on the senior. That is the fundamental difference. And AARP. the largest organization of seniors in the country. agrees with what I have just said. They say in their letter: The premium support method described in the proposal. unlike private plan options that currently exist in Medicare. would likely "price out" traditional Medicare as a viable option. thus rendering the choice of traditional Medicare as a false promise. They go on to say that the purchasing power of this voucher will not keep pace with health care costs. Lets not put that risk on seniors. And with that. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida who has been just tenacious in making sure that we deal with these issues in a fair and balanced way.
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Chair. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey . who has been fighting for jobs as part of this budget.
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Chair. somebody who has said lets fix this in an adult way. a balanced way. the way other bipartisan groups have done is
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

If the gentleman will yield. let the record show that in a moment of genuine bipartisanship. I gave the chairmans chart back to him for his own use.
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Chairman. the gentlelady who just spoke is correct that under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan that Members of Congress are on that there is a 72 percent for the premium. Thats exactly what that steady green line is. And as health care costs go up. the gentlelady will continue through the congressional plan to get a steady amount of support under the Federal health plan that Members of Congress have. Under the Republican budget plan. in fact. that support drops steadily and deeply. which is why it is not premium support. With that. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon. a distinguished member of the Budget Committee. Mr. BLUMENAUER.
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Chairman. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas . who has been fighting for education. among other things.
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Chairman. I think we should engage in tax reform. but I dont think we need to wait for tax reform to get rid of some of the subsidies to the Big Oil companies or to get rid of the subsidies for corporate jets. We can do that now as part of a balanced approach. With that. I yield 2 minutes to the newest member of the Budget Committeewere pleased to have her on the committeethe gentlelady from Oregon .
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I yield the gentlewoman another 15 seconds. These programs will help prepare our future workers for their careers in the nextgeneration technologies. Theres a stark contrast between the Republicans budget and what my Democratic colleagues and I are proposing. Were at a fork in the road. and I urge my colleagues to avoid the path to poverty by rejecting the Republican budget and coming together to support the balanced approach.
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Chairman. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts . the distinguished ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman. the Presidents budget and the Democratic alternative also get rid of the sequester. but we replace that with $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction through a balanced way because we think its more important to protect that defense spending than it is to protect a lot of the special interest loopholes. Heres the statement from General Martin Dempsey. the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And he says. with respect to what this budget will do: Its a force thats prepared to secure global access and respond to global contingencies. Its a military that can win any conflict anywhere. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. not talking about the Republican budget. talking about the Presidents budget. With that. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York . the distinguished ranking member of the Small Business Committee.
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Chairman. there is no doubt that we have to reduce the deficit and debt for the good of all of our children and grandchildren. The debate today is about how we do it and whether we do it in a balanced way. I would point out the Congressional Budget Office has told us that $2 trillion of the debt over the last 10 years is attributed to the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. We keep hearing today about the need. which we all agree. to reduce the deficit. but we still have not heard a single one of our Republican colleagues say that we should reduce one tax loophole for the purpose of reducing the deficit so we can deal with this in a balanced manner. With that. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts. the distinguished ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee. Mr. MARKEY.
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Chairman. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. the gentleman from Michigan .
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Chairman. I would point out again. just in response to my friend Mr. FLAKE. that this is the chart that was used by the chairman of the Budget Committee.
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. The debate were having here is not whether to reduce the deficit and the debt. We have to do that. The issue is the choices we make in the process. The President does have a budget. it does take a balanced approach. My colleagues say: Watch out. Well. watch out for the bipartisan Commissions. all of whom have recommended taking an approach that is balanced. Yes. we have to deal with the spending part. Weve cut a trillion dollars. There are additional cuts in these budgets. but we should also end the specialinterest tax breaks. and we should ask folks at the very top to take a little bit more responsibility. Here are the choices that are made in the Republican budget. Here is a very simple one. This is the continuation of the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 percent. $261 billion. Meanwhile. they cut $810 billion from Medicaid. Again. twothirds of Medicaid spending goes to seniors and individuals with disabilities. That wasnt enough. They apparently are doubling down on tax breaks that benefit the folks at the very top. This is the amount of tax break millionaires will get from continuing the Bush tax cuts. Theyve added over $260.000 in additional average tax breaks for people making over a million dollars. They say theyre going to make that up somehow. Ill tell you how theyre going to make it up: by increasing the tax burden on middleincome Americans. With that. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished assistant Democratic leader. who has been looking out for average working Americans his entire career. the gentleman from South Carolina .
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the comments of the member of the Budget Committee. Mr. WOODALL from Georgia. but I dont think the choice the Republicans make in this budget is the right thing to do. I dont think the American people are going to think its the right thing to do. I dont think the choice to provide another round of tax cuts for people making more than $1 million a year while ending the Medicare guarantee for seniors who have median income under $23.000 a year is the right choice. and I dont think its the courageous choice. Now. I heard Mr. WOODALL say that it doesnt change one thing. not one thing in Medicare. Thats just not true. This immediately reopens the prescription drug doughnut hole. The Republican plan takes some of the savings we achieved under the Affordable Care Act for Medicare. but instead of using it like we did to help strengthen the prescription drug plan. it reopens it. It does it immediately. That is an additional $10.000 over 10 years for seniors who have high prescription drug costs. Do you know what else it does immediately? It immediately ends the preventive care services we provided under Medicare. Because we want to encourage seniors to get that early care. so we eliminated the copays. Now theyve got to pay that too. immediately. Now. the gentleman said the President doesnt have a plan on Medicare. I keep having to remind my colleagues that this chart was presented by the chairman of the Budget Committee.