macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2013-02-05
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me just say. I dont think anyone on this side of the aisle is not prepared to work collaboratively on the question of the deficit. on the question of growing Americas economy and working with our children. Can we find common ground that indicates that we must invest in our children at the same time that we are likewise talking about debt and deficit? And thats what the Democrats are talking about. investing in our children. making their lives better.
Date: 2013-02-05
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Theres no doubt that its a priority of the American people. 72 percent of the American people. to reduce the deficit. We need to reduce the deficit. In fact. in the last election. both candidates talked about their plans for how to reduce that deficit in a smart and measured way. The American people spoke. and they said they preferred the balanced approach that the President has laid out that includes a combination of cuts. And. by the way. we did more than $1.5 trillion of cuts through the combination of the Budget Control Act and the supplementals in the last 2 or 3 years. Weve already done that. We need to keep making more cuts. And. in fact. our substitute proposal includes additional cuts. But in the last election. the American people also said that we should close some of these tax breaks for special interests and very wealthy people. And yet our Republican colleagues have taken the position. the ironclad position. that you cant close or eliminate one of those tax breaks that their Presidential candidate and Vice Presidential candidate talked about if you want to use that for the purpose of reducing the deficit. You cant do it. So. yes. we need to reduce the deficit. The President has a plan to do it. He just doesnt do it the way our Republican colleagues would do it. which is by whacking Social Security and Medicaid. and by shortchanging important investments in our education and in our kids future. So. yes. reduce the deficit. but lets do it in a sensible way. And the President has the prerogative of getting to put forward his budget the way he would like to present it to Congress. and then Congress can do its work however it wants. With that. I yield 4 minutes to my friend and colleague from Maryland. and someone who has been very focused on reducing our deficits in a responsible way. Mr. HOYER.
Date: 2013-02-05
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. if I could inquire. as I understand. were doing half of the total time tomorrow. Would the chairman know how much time remains today on each side?
Date: 2013-02-05
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Thats my understanding. too. Mr. Chairman. let me just make a couple comments which are 100 percent accurate. just so people watching this can understand what were all talking about. since theres a lot of confusion. The President is going to submit a budget. He has submitted a budget every year of his 4 years. Our Republican colleagues dont like the budgets that he submits. but theyre free to look at them. Theyre transparent. Theyre on the Internet. The President was late this year because we worked frantically to avoid the fiscal cliff and reach an agreement on January 2. You need to know what your revenues are going to be before you can put together a budget. number one. Number two. the House can take whatever action it wants on the Presidents budget. You can tell the people you dont like it and you can have your own alternative. as you will. But hes going to submit a budget thats transparent. which is why we shouldnt be wasting time talking about this on the floor of the House when in less than 1 month were going to see these acrosstheboard meatax cuts take place that our Republican colleagues themselves have acknowledged are going to hurt jobs and hurt the economy. which is why we proposed an alternative. a substitute to prevent those meatax cuts from taking place. And. unfortunately. our colleagues who keep saying they want an open and transparent process. put the gavel down and said. no. that this House of Representatives isnt going to have a chance to vote on something to prevent the acrosstheboard sequester cuts. Instead. they just want to keep on whistling by this problem. They havent taken it up in this Congress. So I urge my colleagues to get serious. come back with a plan like ours and that will demonstrate. Mr. Chairman. that were serious. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2013-02-06
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Chairman. as we debated yesterday. the bill before us is unfortunately nothing more than a political gimmick at a time when were facing huge issues with respect to jobs and the economy. Its very unfortunate that we did not have an opportunity to vote on an amendment that we proposed to replace the sequesterwhich is now less than a month away and which will do grave economic harmour proposal to replace that sequester with a balanced mix of cuts and revenue from closing loopholes. But in this body. which says it wants to be transparent in the peoples House. we were denied an opportunity to take a vote on something thats very important to the American people. as opposed to playing the political games weve been playing with this bill. With that. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Democratic leader. the Representative from San Francisco and the daughter of Baltimore. the home of the Super Bowl champions. the Ravens.
Date: 2013-02-06
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Chairman. for those Members of this body who were not focused on this debate yesterday. lets make a couple of things clear. The President will introduce a budget. he is going to submit a budget. and he has submitted a budget every year. Our Republican colleagues dont like his budget because he takes a balanced approach to reducing the deficit. meaning that in addition to cuts. he also calls for additional revenue from taking away special tax breaks for special interests. Thats number one. Number two. what this bill does is. number one. require the President to submit his budget in a certain way. and number two. it criticizes the President for submitting his budget late. Again. for those who werent part of the debate yesterday. the reason the Presidents budget is late is because we had to pass the fiscal cliff agreement. We didnt get that done until January 2. And I have to say. Madam Chairman. we got it done despite the overwhelming opposition of House Republicans. We were pleased to get the overwhelming support of Senate Republicans. but House Republicans continue to take the position that they were prepared to go over the fiscal cliff in order to protect tax breaks for very wealthy people. Thats why the Presidents budget is late. because as any American family knows. if you dont know what revenue is coming in. you cant put together your household budget. We didnt know what kind of revenue was coming in until January 2. So. with that. Madam Chairman. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee. Mr. LEVIN.
Date: 2013-02-06
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bill is entitled the PLAN Act. What we really need is a plan to avoid the sequester. these acrosstheboard. indiscriminate cuts that are going to take place on March 1. which we all know are going to hurt jobs and the economy. We just heard from the Republican leader. Last September. he made a very good point on the floor of this House. He said that if you allow those sequester cuts to take place. youre going to see more than 200.000 jobs lost just in the State of Virginia just in the defense sector. The acrosstheboard cuts are going to hurt jobs in defense. but theyre also going to hurt other jobs as well as important national efforts. whether its the FBI. whether its border security. or whether its medical research at the National Institutes of Health. All those things are going to be cut. Now. the majority leader just made the point that when the American people are asked what their number one priority is. its jobs and the economy. So why arent we doing something about jobs and the economy? Why did the Republican leadership deny us an opportunity just to have a vote on a plan. a plan to prevent that sequester from taking place in less than a month. a plan that would replace that sequester with a mix of longterm. targeted cuts as well as revenues from. for example. getting rid of the taxpayer subsidies for the Big Oil companies? Thats the real plan we need. and yet we havent seen any plan from our Republican colleagues in this 113th Congress. So. lets focus on what really is important to the American people. The deficit is. of course. important to the American people. As the Republican leader said. it ranked number two. Theres no debate there. The issue all along has been not whether we reduce the deficit but how we do it. making sure. number one. we dont do it in a way that hurts the economy. like some of the austerity plans in Europe. which apparently our Republican colleagues would like us to copy. That hurt the economy. We saw it didnt work in the U.K.. and we believe we need to reduce the deficit in a balanced waycuts but also revenue. by asking very wealthy people to contribute a little bit more and by closing those tax breaks that we heard about from the Republican Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate all last fall. Those tax breaks are still out there. We propose to eliminate some of those for the purpose of reducing the deficit in a balanced way. Thats the plan we need. Thats the plan weve offered. Unfortunately. thats the plan we havent had a chance to even get a vote on. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2013-02-06
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Chairman. I think its important to remind our colleagues that as part of the Budget Control Act and other measures we took over the last several years. we have already cut $1.5 trillion over the 10year budget period by placing a cap on spending. The President has been very clear. as have Democrats in the Congress. We understand weve got to make some important cuts. We did $1.5 trillion. We can do more. In fact. the substitute amendment that I proposed would eliminate these direct payments for agribusinesses. over $29 billion in unnecessary subsidies. The question isnt whether we should do cuts. Yes. we should do them. We should do them in a smart way and not in an acrosstheboard way. But we should also generate revenue by closing the tax loopholes to reduce the deficit. We heard again from our Republican colleagues throughout the last Presidential campaign about all these tax breaks that benefit very wealthy people. Lets close them to help reduce the deficit. and thats exactly what our substitute would do to help replace the sequester. Im now pleased to yield 2 minutes to someone who knows these issues well. a terrific new Member of Congress from the State of Maryland .
Date: 2013-02-06
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman. weve heard a number of the last speakers complain about the fact that the Presidents budget will be a little late this year. Again. for the new Members joining usand we welcome all of the new Members. those being Republicans and Democratsin the last session of Congress. we were here until January 2 trying to put together an agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff. That was the Presidents priorityto make sure that we didnt hurt jobs and the economy by going over the fiscal cliff. The overwhelming majority of our Republican colleagues in this House voted against that plan because they were more focused on protecting tax breaks for very wealthy individuals than about protecting jobs and the economy. Thats their choice. Their Senate Republican colleagues made a different choice. but our House Republican colleagues can make the choice that they want. Now. with respect to the budget. the President will submit a budget. and our House Republican colleagues can reject it or do what they want with it. The issue is not whether hell submit a budget. He will. The issue is whether or not we would dictate to the President what the form of his budget should take. and that is wrong. It is also a little curious to hear this newfound support for these sort of balanced budgets from our Republican colleagues. I would just remind everybody that the last time we had a balanced budget was at the end of the Clinton administration. Why? Because. in addition to economic growth. they asked the American people to contribute a little bit more in terms of tax revenue. The Bush administration came in and immediately squandered those surpluses. I think its important to know that. since 1950. weve had a balanced budget on only eight occasions. unfortunately. The last time we had a Republican President who balanced his budget without inheriting it from a Democratic President was Dwight Eisenhower. So we are pleased that our Republican colleagues are joining us in trying to get back to fiscal responsibility. We see reducing the deficit as a very important part of that. but we disagree that we should do it by cutting important commitments weve made to seniors. by slashing our investment in our kids educations. by cutting science and research and things that help power our economy and make us competitive. We think thats the wrong approach. We need a balanced approach that combines cuts with revenues from closing these tax breaks for the purpose of reducing the deficit. Thats the kind of plan we need. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2013-02-06
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

May I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides. The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 21/2 minutes remaining. and the gentleman from Georgia has 15 seconds remaining.
Date: 2013-02-06
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Chairman. again. just to put all this into perspective. I appreciate the sort of newfound vigor with which our Republican colleagues are approaching this issue. I would just remind them that. in the budget they brought to the floor in the last 2 years. it did not balance. according to the CBO. until 2040. Even then. if you read what the Congressional Budget Office said. it wasnt as a result of the Congressional Budget Offices analysis of their policies. it was simply based on assumptions that our Republican colleagues provided to the CBO. So the real question here is: How do we reduce our deficits in a way that does not hurt the economy right now but does make sure that. as the economy improves. public spending and deficit spending does not squeeze out private investment? Actually. for the last couple of years. the problem has been the opposite. We have seen less private investment. and so the moneys the Federal Government has spent have been very important to helping the economy from going into free fall. But theres no doubt that we have to come up with a balanced approach to dealing with this issue in the outyears. and thats where the debate lies. in how we should do that. And again. our Republican colleagues have said "no" to the balanced approach. theyve said "no" to the plan that we offered to prevent the sequester. and they didnt say "no." they wouldnt even allow a vote on the plan we offered to prevent the sequester thats going to hit on March 1 and which our Republican colleagues in statement after statement on this floor have said is going to hurt the economy. and which we know from the last quarters economic report is already hurting the economy just because businesses are anticipating the possibility of these acrosstheboard cuts. So thats the plan that we should be focused on. Thats the plan that helps the economy. that will help save jobs. And its just unfortunate that weve been denied an opportunity in the peoples House to even have a vote on the one plan thats been submitted in this Congress. in this House. to prevent those job losses and prevent harm being done to our economy. So I would hope. Madam Chairman. that we put aside this political gimmick. The President will submit a budget. Our Republican colleagues can do with it whatever they want. but lets put aside the political games and focus on jobs and the economy and lets have a vote on the plan that we have introduced to prevent that sequester from taking place and prevent the economic damage that it would do. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2013-02-06
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Chair. I thank my colleague. Mr. SCHRADER. and his colleagues for offering this amendment. I support the overall framework of SimpsonBowles. Ive said that many times. If you look at the balance in SimpsonBowles between the cuts and the revenue. its something. I think. that is the model that we should be using in this body. And I do want to submit for the RECORD an analysis that was done by the Center For Budget Policy Priorities that shows exactly what that breakdown would be. I dont support every single recommendation within SimpsonBowles. but I think we have an obligation. if we dont like one of their cuts. to come up with an alternative cut. If we dont like their revenue. we should come up with alternative revenue. But what the SimpsonBowles proposal does is it creates a framework saying that we need to take a balanced approach to reducing our deficit. I was listening to my friend. Mr. PRICE. explaining his opposition to this. He didnt want to impose requirements on the President. simply ask the President to consider these proposals. And as the President himself has said. he has incorporated many of the proposals from SimpsonBowles into his own budget. the ones he submitted last year and the one that he will submit this year. So I support the framework. not every recommendation. but the overall framework.
Date: 2013-02-06
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition. even though I will not ultimately oppose the amendment. The Acting CHAIR. Without objection. the gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 minutes.
Date: 2013-02-06
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Chairman. I support this amendment because this is something we all want to see happen and which the President himself has indicated he wants to see happen. In the last fiscal year budget. in fact. the President. through OMB. the Office of Management and Budget. submitted something called Cuts. Consolidations. and Savings to be considered by the Congress and the executive branch. and he also asked that legislation be submitted on his behalf to help give him more authority to reorganize some of these government agencies. which was introduced during the last Congress by Mr. BARROW. who may well intend to reintroduce that. Madam Chairman. these are things I think we all would like to see. greater efficiencies that help save money in a smart way. The President has indicated not only his intention but specific proposals to do so. and so we do not object. In fact. I support the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2013-02-06
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition even though I am not opposed to the amendment. The Acting CHAIR. Without objection. the gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 minutes.
Date: 2013-02-06
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I think it is very useful to let everybody in the country know exactly what the debt and deficit will be on a per capita basis. We in Congress of course can do the math. I think its no problem asking the President to run that calculation as well. Again. I want to emphasize the fact that theres agreement on reducing the deficit. the real differences here are over how we do it. But regardless of how you want to do it. I think the gentleman has offered a useful amendment. The more information for the American people. the better. and we will not object and in fact support the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2013-02-06
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Again. what this amendment does is ask the President. when he submits the budget. to provide certain information about mandatory spending and meanstested spending. In fact. the President already does this in his budget. I have in my hand. in fact. the budget for fiscal year 2013thats the current fiscal year that were in nowhistorical tables that were submitted by the President as part of that budget submission. The categories include mandatory spending. and within mandatory spending they break it down: Social Security deposit insurance. meanstested entitlements. and others. So this is information that the President already provides as part of the budget process. Im happy to support him continuing to do that. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2013-02-06
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Chairman. I will not use all the time. As I said. what this amendment requests is information that. in fact. the President already provides as part of the budget submission. I indicated I have in my hand that information from the last fiscal years budget. I do think that in pursuit of transparency its important to point out that when the President was first sworn in his first term. before he put his hand on the Bible. he faced a projected deficit of well over $1 trilliona record deficit at that time. As we saw from the Congressional Budget Office in their report just the other day. that deficit is now coming down. As the economy has improved and as the Presidents policies have begun to take shape. that deficit is on its way down. Is it far enough down? No. And theres a legitimate debate as to the best way to get there. but as part of that debate. certainly the more information. the better. And as I indicated. this information that is being requested is. in fact. already provided to the Congress. So we will not oppose it. In fact. I would support the amendment. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania .
Date: 2013-02-06
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana .
Date: 2013-02-06
Speaker: HARRY REID (democrat)
Chamber: H

doesnt want sequester. and I dont want sequester. I would hope. based upon your comment that I just quoted. that you dont want sequester. but were not going to get away from the sequester unless theres legislation that you bring to this floorand you have the authority to do thatwhich will obviate going to sequester and will put in place an alternative which will do what you and I both want to do. and that is address the deficit and debt. both short term and long term. Senator MIKE JOHANNS said: I just have a feeling sequesters going to happen. I just think theres so much concern about the debt and spending that it overrides most issues these days. Now. those "most issues" are those 200.000 people that you talked about in your statement. Senator AYOTTE said: Looks like where were headed. sequestration.