macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2012-02-02
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman. Im glad the gentleman raised the question of the long term. and it begs the question about why this bill is written in a way such that we would not be requiring an economic analysis of the major change of law that we may be making with respect to tax policy. which would be to extend the 2001. 2003 tax cuts. all or some of them. Lets talk about the long term because. in fact. the Joint Committee on Taxation which. of course. is the entity that does the tax analysis for the Congressional Budget Office. has said that at the end of that 10year period. extending those tax cuts actually slows down the economypage 6 of the testimony of the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation before the House Committee on Ways and Means. September 21. 2011. What they point out is that at the end of the 10year period. youre losing GDP growth. Again. why? Because if you have big tax cuts that are financed by borrowing. as the Republican rules of the House were changed to allow. Hey. we can provide tax cuts for folks at the very top. put it on the credit card. no more payasyougo. that increases the deficit. You increase the deficit. as the economy begins to recover. thats when it really begins to crowd out private investment. So those tax cuts begin to slow down the economy in the end of the 10year period. and theyre not an efficient useespecially the tax breaks for the folks at the top 2 percentits not an efficient means to getting the economy moving again. We saw in the 1990s under President Clinton we had a higher top marginal tax rate: 20 million jobs were created. booming economic times. So Im glad the previous gentlemen raised the issue of the long term. Again. were all a little perplexed about why this bill is written in a way that the major change in law that we could make either this year or next year with respect to the full or partial extension of the tax cuts wouldnt even trigger this economic analysis. That is astounding. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2012-02-02
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I just have to emphasize again. I already read from the portion of the bill that says we want economic analyses of major pieces of legislation except from the Committee on Appropriations. Again. transportation and infrastructure investments over the history of our country have provided important economic growth. The President asked this Congress to take up his infrastructure investment jobs bill last September. Congress hasnt taken it up. and now apparently we dont want to include in the study the positive economic impact that something like that would have. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2012-02-02
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. the gentlemans mistaken. I mean. we do get analyses now with respect to the economic impact. Theres a provision in the House rules that I referenced earlier that asked for that. and in fact. Joint Tax has done exactly that. The figures I was reading with respect to the negative impact on growth in the outyears were from a dynamic analysis the Joint Tax Committee has done pursuant to House rules.
Date: 2012-02-02
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I refer the gentleman to the bill. the piece of the document Ive referenced several times already. This kind of work is done. What youre asking for here is to. again. leave off part of the equation. for example. the recovery bill. The recovery bill was primarily an appropriations bill. Leave off part of the equation. but also when it comes to the revenue piece. skew the request. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon .
Date: 2012-02-02
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Look. I think everybody in this body understands that the more good information we get the better. Thats why its troubling that in this particular bill were asking the question of CBO in a way that will only give us partial information. I already mentioned that we left out the impact. the economic impact from what we think should be included. We think the appropriations investments in transportation should be included in any economic analysis. Clearly. important investments we make in science and research and innovation and our infrastructure have an economic impact. but this doesnt ask for any of that information. Therell be some amendments that say we should. Hopefully our colleagues will vote for them. But what is very bizarre is the way this is structured so that it doesnt require a macroeconomic. dynamic analysis of the major change in law that we will make with respect to whether or not to extend all or some of the tax cuts. because the way its written. it will assume those tax cuts are already in place. Now. weve already had an analysis that was done by the Joint Committee on Taxation. a macroeconomic dynamic analysis. It does say at the end of that period it would actually have a drag on the economy because it increases the deficit. So lets make sure that we get full information. and thats where I do want to end. by just pointing out that the most recent estimates from the Congressional Budget Office. in terms of the impact of the recovery bill. was in a document dated November of 2011. and theres a chart in there that shows a range. Obviously since the recovery bill is no longer in full effect in this current year. you dont continue to say the positive impacts. But Dr. Elmendorf has testified numerous times before the Budget Committee and indicated that had it not been for the passage of the recovery bill. had it not been for actions of the Federal Reserve. economic growth today would be much slower. That would mean more people out of work. We need to do better. We need to get things moving faster. Thats why we should take up the Presidents jobs bill that has been sitting in this House since September. Thats why I hope the conference committee on the payroll tax cut extension for 160 million people will get our job done quickly so that we can provide those opportunities to help the economy grow when its in this very fragile state. So. Mr. Chairman. I just close by saying we all want information. Lets just not ask for information in a selective way designed to get a preconceived answer.
Date: 2012-02-02
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I. too. want to express my appreciation to the Rules Committee for allowing my amendment to come in. And I acknowledge the ranking member of our Budget Committee for his excellent service.
Date: 2012-02-02
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank Dr. PRICE for his presence here today and engaging in this discussion. In a few days. I will be meeting with a number of my clergy. along with my small business community. coming from all walks of life. and all of us have found in our hearts and our minds to recognize that small business is in fact the backbone of this country. So I would ask that. as we look at the issue of macroeconomic analysis of this legislation. that we include a welldefined concept to understand what the impact will be on HUBZone areas as defined by the Small Business Act. H.R. 3582 would require the Congressional Budget Office to provide a macroeconomic impact analysis for bills that are estimated to have a large budgetary effect. and under this bill. there would be analysis that would come about on a number of issues that would. in fact. involve the gross domestic product. The Small Business Administration administers several programs to support small businesses. including Historically Underused Business Zone empowerment contracting. better known as the HUBZone. The HUBZone program is an effective program. Its a small business Federal contracting assistance program that crosses the land. Wherever you live. you have the opportunity to participate in a HUB program. whose primary objective is job creation and increasing capital investment in distressed communities. irrespective of your location and your background. It provides participating small businesses located in areas with lowincome. high poverty rates. or high unemployment rates with contracting opportunities in the form of setaside. solesource awards and price evaluation preferences. Mr. Chairman. this could happen to any community. One moment you could be thriving. and a tornado could come to you in the next moment and you fall in the category of a HUBZone to revitalize small businesses. So I ask my colleagues to support an amendment that spreads across America. and to make the determination that the vitality of small businesses is important to all of us and an assessment should be made using the HUBZone and the impact such legislation would have. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2012-02-02
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again. just for people who are trying to get educated about the budget process who may be watching. and among our colleagues. we put together a 10year projection of the budget in a lot of different categories. The appropriators on a yeartoyear basis can decide how much or how little to give any program. and every Member of this body gets a chance to vote up or down on that. So thats not what this is about. This is not about saving money. I hope we will all save money and get the deficit down. This is about what information is presented in terms of giving an accurate picture of what the cost is of providing goods and services. So Im going to give the same example very clearly. Again. its a very clear example. In fiscal year 2013. were going to have $61 billion in the budget for discretionary spending for veterans programs. Now under the current procedure. the Congressional Budget Office tries to figure out 10 years from now. knowing what we do about inflation expectationsand everybody calculates those into their financial decisionswhat would it take to provide the same services for our veterans? Now what theyre proposing is to put in $61 billion in year 10. But thats misleading because youre not going to be able to provide the services to our veterans at the same level for that amount. In fact. that will represent a 23 percent cut. So I would ask my colleagues. what 23 percent cut are you proposing to make in veterans programs as we go through this budget? And why do you want to build in what is misleading in a sense that it creates a false impression of what a dollar will purchase 10 years from now compared to what it will purchase today?
Date: 2012-02-02
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Well. thank you. And taking back my time. you really made my point. which is that if the purpose of a budget is to try and provide the most realistic projection of what services were going to provide in the future compared to today. you should take into account the cost of those increases. The gentleman has just said that of course were going to build in inflation with respect to veterans programs. In fact. were going to do better than that. And Im glad to hear that because were going to take into account the fact that medical inflation runs higher than regular inflation. But the point is. if you put different numbers in year 10 that dont take into account inflation. youre going to give people a very misleading sense of what can be purchased for their tax dollars in terms of goods and services. The same holds true with respect to DOD. in other words. the Defense Department. Why dont we want to present the American people with an accurate representation of what it will actually cost to maintain the current defense or current discretionary veterans programs? Thats the whole purpose of this. The Appropriations Committee can do what it wants with respect to decisions in increases and in cuts. I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker.
Date: 2012-02-02
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I hear what youre saying with veterans. Absolutely true. on a bipartisan basis. we understand were going to make sure we support the veterans and were going to make sure they get the costofliving increase. And the reality is. you mentioned the defense budget. Thats 50 percent of the discretionary budget right there. Are we going to make sure that we provide increases to make sure that we can maintain the same national defense?
Date: 2012-02-02
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

So heres the point. So youre going to create a document for the American people that says. hey. were going to be spending this much in year 10 for veterans when we know that thats not true. We know right now. in fact. youve just said on the floor of this House. that numbers going to be a lot bigger. And my point is we can make it bigger. we can make it smaller. This bill doesnt save a dime in terms of what decisions we make. But why would we want to present the American people with a misleading sense of what its going to cost in real dollars and cents? I agree with the Member.
Date: 2012-02-02
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Reclaiming my time. but look. were doing everything in the light of day. The issue isnt whether its done in the light of day or not. Of course its done in the light of day. Its what picture were presenting to the American people in terms of the budget numbers on what their tax dollars will be able to purchase in terms of goods and services. And in my view. its misleading to say were going to be spending the same nominal dollar amount for veterans 10 years from now in the budget when we know. according to your own testimony and according to what we know. that thats not going to be the case. Thats why we try and put together a document that gives us the best representation of the information we have as to what it will cost. then we can make a decision to add or subtract. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2012-02-02
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Maryland. the distinguished Democratic whip. Mr. HOYER.
Date: 2012-02-03
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I want to thank the gentlelady from New York for her courtesies of extending time on a bill that we have been waiting for for a very long time. I was speaking. as I was coming to the floor. and thinking about whether or not we could work together in a bipartisan manner. I represent a number of airports generally. and specifically I represent Bush Intercontinental Airport. which has a reputation for being one of the top airports around the Nation. A couple of months ago. we stood together with our airport director and workers in the community. asking for an FAA authorization bill. We are in need of repairs. and we are in need of growth. And how exciting it is to know that this has been one of the best jobgrowth months in our time. 243.000 jobs. Were on the right track.
Date: 2012-02-03
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I thank the gentlelady for her kindness. If any Member. any Governor had to go to the polls and work to bring people to the polls to vote in an election in a democratic process and in that election they had to count the people who were home. asleep in their beds. some who did not desire to votethat was their democratic choice. although we want everyone to votemost people would say that is absurd. including my friends on the other side of the aisle. Why did this have to be the scourge in this particular legislation? Let me also say that. as the ranking member on the Transportation Security Committee and as formerly the chairperson. I believe in working together. We had a pilot program dealing with privatization in some small airports of the Transportation Security Administration. But the gentlelady is from New York. And if I recall. we were privatized on that fateful date of 9/11. The idea is to make our TSOs at a level that is responsible across the Nation. And we had language in this bill that said that we may look at other requests or make decisions on other requests for using privatization. No. they go and change the language. Now. "the Secretary shall." She has to. And there is no credible evidence that suggests that the privatization of TSOs or the Transportation Security Administration is going to make our Nation safer. Why do we mix infrastructure workgetting our airports safer and credible and ready to expandwith these kinds of poison pills in the box. inyoureye initiatives? So. Mr. Speaker. I came to the floor to say that I am shouting for the fact that we have finally come together in what could be a way forward. but. unfortunately. we have decided to use the poison pen strategy. divide but not conquer. Were going to fix this as we go forward. I ask my colleagues to vote against the rule.
Date: 2012-02-03
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Let me thank the chairman and ranking member of the full committee of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. as well as the Science. Space. and Technology Committee. I would simply say that. at the end of this year. I will have completed two decades on both of these committees. On committees is where you develop most of your friendships. JERRY COSTELLO and his wife. Georgia. have been one of those true friendships that I have experienced. and Ill miss him greatly and Ill miss her greatly when he retires. I hope theyll visit often. My role as a conferee on this conference committee was as ranking member of the Science. Space. and Technology Committee. and I would like to highlight some of the provisions in the bill that fall within the jurisdiction of this committee. The NextGen modernization authorized in this bill will transform the National Airspace System. Through NextGens satellitebased traffic management. we will be able to address increased congestion in our Nations skies while improving safety and reducing the environmental footprint of our air transport. Transitioning to a GPSbased air traffic control system will allow airlines to reduce flight delays. save fuel. and cut the amount of harmful emissions from aircraft engines. There is no doubt that the successful implementation of NextGen will boost our economy and enable the creation of more jobs. The bill also authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to establish a Center for Excellence to develop innovations in jet fuel production. spurring the development of new and better energy technologies. Through the conference committee. we were able to improve upon the version initially passed by the House of Representatives. but as with all legislation. there were many compromises. and there were several aspects of this legislation which I believe could further be improved. as with any piece of legislation. On balance. however. the conference report contains needed policy direction and authorizations that warrant Member support. While the funding proposed for research and development is less than I believe we need to invest. the conference report represents an improvement over the funding levels in the Housepassed bill. Im also disappointed that the commercial space transportation provision included in this conference report was done so without the benefit of a serious review of its impacts. I expect that Chairman HALL and I will be taking a serious look at these issues associated with commercial space transportation and this provision during the remainder of the session of this Congress.
Date: 2012-02-03
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I am. however. pleased that a number of policy provisions we worked on in the Science. Space. and Technology Committee have been included in this conference report. For example. the House mandates FAA research on methods and procedures to improve confidence in and the timeliness of certification of new technologies for introduction into the National Airspace System. So. Mr. Speaker. there is much work to be done to keep our skies safe. but it is certainly time for Congress to act. This reauthorization is the culmination of years of work that has not been fair to the FAA and its employees who are trying to figure out whether theyre going to exist or not with 23 extensions. So with the guidance to pursue its longterm initiatives. we will take our aviation system into the 21st century. and I urge my colleagues to support this imperfect bill. But let me say. Mr. Speaker. I have not yet experienced a perfect bill.
Date: 2012-02-03
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to this conference report. This compromise stands as an example of why it is counterproductive to negotiate with hostage takers. Initially. the Republicans insisted that to keep the FHA up and running we make union elections as unfair as possible. For instance. they said that in a union election we should count anyone who did not vote in that election as a "no" vote. Members of Congress immediately recognized that none of us would win those elections and none of us would be here today. and if it is unfair for us. it must also be unfair for the workers of this country. The Republicans gave up that demand thanks to the Democrats. The rule providing for fair elections is protected. Instead of succeeding at making union elections unfair. this conference report makes these elections difficult. if not impossible. to hold at all. This report contains numerous statutory changes. not rules changes. but statutory changes. that will make it harder for workers to get an election and have a voice at work. A voice at work is a fundamental right granted to every worker in this Nation by the laws of this Nation. These changes will require an act of Congress to undo. The compromise leads to absurdities. Under the election rule. which is safe for the time being. workers need a majority of actual votes to win in a union election. and that is fine. Under the conference report. to even hold an election. workers must first get a majority of all of the eligible workers to sign cards supporting the unions. These are nationwide units stretched across the country. You dont have access to all of those workers. You dont even know where many of them are. In the airlines. many of them may have been furloughed for a number of years. Imagine if a congressional election were run this way. To get on the ballot. you first need a majority of all of the voters in your district to sign cards saying they supported you. but you didnt know who those voters were and you didnt know where they lived. None of us would be elected.
Date: 2012-02-03
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

None of us would be elected under this requirement. In fact. there probably wouldnt even be an election. Once again. we wouldnt run under these conditions. We wouldnt participate in an election under these conditions. and yet we are insisting that American workers have their elections rigged in this fashion. At this point. especially when you see how it might work in airline mergers. there again this rule works against the workers in trying to assemble the election unit. Mr. Speaker. I cannot support this bill. It undermines the rights of American workers for no purpose other than to satisfy the ideological demands of the Republicans and their special interest backers. I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating this conference report.