macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I would point out that the chairman of the Budget Committee has mentioned a number of times this PolitiFact. I want to read from what PolitiFact said with respect to this. He said that its true that the term "terminate" Medicare. which some had used. was an overstatement. No doubt about it. Just like. apparently. a couple of years ago theyve saidwhat Ive heard from a lot of my colleagues that the Affordable Care Act was a "government takeover of health care." Ive heard that a lot from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. That was the big PolitiFact socalled "lie of the year" a couple of years ago. So lets just be clear. But this is the important part. It says: If Democrats had just slightly tweaked their statements. they would be accurate. They go on to point out that. for example. when people said the plan last year would privatize Medicare. that was true. And that President Obama was also more precise with his words saying that the Medicare proposal "would voucherize the program and you potentially have senior citizens paying 10.000 or more." They didnt say that was false. What we have said. what I have said very carefully all along is that it ends the Medicare guarantee. And I firmly believe it ends the Medicare guarantee for this reason. for this reason right here: this is the current Medicare plan support for seniors in terms of the percent that they have to pay. that blue line. steady support. Green line demonstrates steady support that Members of Congress get from the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan. Red line is what happens when you put seniors into the private health care market but you dont allow their premium support to rise with the projected rise in health care costs. Red line. down. I think that does end the Medicare guarantee. With that. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey .
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I keep hearing my Republican colleagues say that their plan will provide seniors with affordable premiums for their health care services. I just keep asking myself why it is that their plan gives seniors on Medicare a much worse deal and a lot less support than the plan Members of Congress have under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. That is a real premium support plan. That is a plan where the premium support keeps pace with rising health care costs. So if youre talking about how to deal with Medicare. it seems to me that you should take the approach that we have taken. that the President has taken. where you modernize the system. you change the incentives to put focus on the value of care. on the quality of care rather than the quantity of care. Were already starting up accountable care organizations. Were already starting up different methods of delivering care and different payment systems. Thats a very different approach than putting the burden on seniors and putting the risk on seniors. With that. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady who represents the Nations capital so well. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON.
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. my colleague. the gentleman from Maryland. put up a chart with the red showing the rising costs of Medicare and said the President has no plan. Well. I wish the gentleman had looked at the chart of the chairman of the Budget Committee. Weve seen it a couple of times today. It shows the black line being the House Republican trajectory. the blue line being the Presidents plan to contain costs. The difference again being that the Republican proposal puts all the risks of rising health care costs onto seniors. whereas the Presidents plan talks about changing the delivery system in a way to encourage the value of care. focus on the value of care. rather than the volume of care. I would only point out that we keep hearing about the IPAB. The reality is that anything they would propose. number one. by law cannot ration care. But number two is subject to review and a vote by Members of Congress. the people in this body. With that. I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee. the gentleman from Michigan .
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I would just urge my friend Mr. PRICE to again look at the chart presented by the chairman of the Budget Committee. Mr. RYAN. which makes it clear that we have different paths. different approaches. with respect to containing costs. Yet. at the end of the day. the trajectories are the same. Ill say again that if Republicans think the notion of the premium support planthe voucher plan. whatever you want to call itwhich doesnt rise with health care costs. is such a good deal for seniors. why are they giving themselves a different deal in the health care plan for Members of Congress? I now yield 11/2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island .
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

I thank the gentleman for yielding. And just like last year. some Members of Congress and beltway talking heads are declaring the Republican budget proposal as bold and courageous. But just like last years Republican budget. this budget proposal is neither bold nor is it courageous. Its not bold to balance your budget on the backs of working families. lowincome families. and the children of this Nation. This Republican budget. in fact. mortgages an entire generation of childrens education and young peoples education. It mortgages their educational opportunities by making cuts at the very earliest of early childhood education. at the elementary level of education. the secondary level of education. and its going to allow the doubling of interest rates on student loans that families have taken out to provide for the higher education that these young people need to get jobs in this economy. to get the skills that they need to be able to go to work in this economy. Yet that is going to be slashed with their cuts. with their increased costs to those individuals. It also sacrifices the health care benefits of a generation. of these same people. because under their proposal they envision the Affordable Care Act somehow going away. that they can repeal it. they can get rid of it. And that means that young people will not be able to stay on their families policies as they finish their education or they seek out their first job. their first beginning of a career. It also ends the Medicare guarantee. It follows the path that George Bush followed when he wanted to privatize it and then again in last years budget. when they sought to end the guarantee. Theyre back again to end that guarantee to our senior citizens. Its not bold. Its just plain wrong. The Affordable Care Act. in fact. strengthened Medicare. It made it more sustainable for seniors and sustainable for the taxpayers. It extended the Medicare trust fund. But thats not what the Republican budgets about. Its about extending the deficits out until sometime in 2014. while at the same time not looking at the impact of military spending or continuing the war in Afghanistan. as they accept it in their budget. And what it says is. therefore. we will shift the entire cuts to the young. to the old. to middle class families. But that cannot be allowed. The Republican budget must be rejected by this House.
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I now yield 11/2 minutes to Mr. WELCH of Vermont. a gentleman who has been focused on fiscal responsibility.
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. may I inquire as to how much time is remaining? The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 2 minutes remaining.
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Thank you. Mr. Chairman. I yield myself the remaining time. The debate weve had this afternoon is not whether we should reduce the deficit. whether we should reduce the debt. but how we do it. the choices that we make in reaching that goal. We support what has been described as a balanced approach. the same approach taken by every bipartisan group that has looked at this challenge. That approach says. yes. we need to make cuts. But we should also cut special interest tax loopholes for the purpose of reducing the deficit. We should also ask folks at the very high end of the income ladder to go back to the same tax rates they were paying during the Clinton administration. Our colleagues reject that balanced approach. I have not heard one of our Republican colleagues say that theyre prepared to take one penny from closing a tax loophole. one penny from getting rid of an oil subsidy for the purpose of deficit reduction. When you do that. when you say were not going to ask the wealthiest to share a greater responsibility. you have to take your budget cuts out on everyone and everything else. Thats why they slashed the transportation funding next year by 46 percent. kicking the economy when its down. Thats why they end the Medicare guarantee for seniors. Thats why they reopen the prescription -drug doughnut hole. Thats why their budget cuts Medicaid by a third. by the year 2022. in the name of repairing the social safety net. Thats not repairing the social safety net. Thats blowing a hole in protections for the most vulnerable Americans. That is not a choice the American people want to make. The American people would choose a balanced approach. They would not choose another round of tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans at the expense of seniors. at the expense of middleincome Americans. at the expense of important investments. They would reject that approach. I urge my colleagues to reject that approach and adopt the balanced Democratic alternative. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentlelady for her leadership tonight. Mr. Chairman. may I inquire as to how much time remains? The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 3 minutes remaining.
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the chairmal. I want to close where the gentlelady began. which is on the economy and on jobs. As this chart shows. when President Obama was sworn in. we were losing over 800.000 jobs a month. But because of actions taken by the President and the Congress and because of the tenacity of the American people and small businesses. we were able to stop the free fall and begin to climb out of that hole. We are now at 24 consecutive months of positive private sector job growth. There were close to 4 million jobs created in that period. We need to sustain that recovery. not put the brakes on it. The Republican proposal unfortunately puts the brakes on it. Ill give you just one example. Next year they would cut our investment in transportation in their budget by 46 percent when we have about 17 percent unemployment in the construction industry. Thats putting the brakes on. We hear from our colleagues that the only way to deal with the budget deficits is to cut. cut. cut. We propose a balanced approach. We do ask that we close some of those tax loopholes. We do ask that folks making a million dollars a year go back to paying the rates that they were in the Clinton administration. Lets see what happened in the economy back then. What this shows is during the Clinton years. 20.8 million jobs were created. After President Bush took office. they lowered the tax rates. There was a net of 653.000 jobs lost. By the way. in 2001. just before the tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the wealthy. that was the last time we balanced the budget. We balanced the budget. and we had great job growth. Thats why we propose a balanced approach. The issue here is not whether we reduce the deficit. not whether we reduce the debt. Its how. Yes. we have to make spending cuts. I hear colleagues on the Republican side coming down here and saying you cant do this all on the revenue side. We get that. But you know what? If you do it without asking the folks at the very top to pay a penny. by closing loopholes and getting rid of tax breaks. what does it mean? It means everybody else pays the consequences. Those decisions to support the wealthy and not ask for shared responsibility come at the expense of our seniors and you end the Medicare guarantee and slash Medicaid by $800 billion. It comes at the expense of middleincome taxpayers. because not only are you locking in the Bush tax cuts for the folks at the top. youre dropping the top rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. Thats another over-$200.000 tax break to people making a million dollars a year. You say youre going to pay for it. You know how its going to happen? Its going to happen by increasing taxes on middleincome Americans. Thats how youre going to finance it. Ive not seen a proposal. Show me a piece of paper that says it wont be taken out on middleincome taxpayers. Mr. Chairman. theres a better approach than the Republican approach. Its the balanced approach. Its the approach supported by bipartisan groups. and its the approach that we will propose in our amendment. I again thank the gentlelady and thank the Chairman.
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chair. I rise today to oppose the Republican Budget. This budget is another giveaway to the wealthy. balanced on the backs of middle class families. the elderly. and the poor. The Republicans budget would reduce spending to support Medicare program management by $207 million in 2013. These cuts hinder the ability to keep pace with growing Medicare and Medicaid enrollment. These cuts would restrict patient access to care and delay payments to providers. Under the GOP budget. 9.6 million students would see their Pell Grants cut in 2012. Their budget would also result in $430 million in cuts to the Head Start program. with 60.000 lowincome children losing access to early childhood education. The GOP budget would also cut $350 million from nutritional assistance for Women. Infants. and Children (WIC). This would cut off funding for 700.000 women and children from receiving food necessary for healthy child development. This illconceived budget would cut funds for Social Security by 5.4 percent in 2013 and 19 percent in future years. reducing vital services for our Nations seniors. This budget ends the Medicare guarantee and increases costs for seniorsreplacing Medicares guarantee of health security with a voucher that shifts higher and higher costs onto seniors and the disabled over time. It cuts Medicaid by a third. while turning it into a block grant. These are the priorities of the Republican majority in the House. Mr. Chair. The Republicans FY2013 Budget favors tax cuts for the wealthy over the needs of children and seniors. The corporate tax cuts alone would cost $1 trillion in lost Federal revenue over the next decade. The Republican leaderships budget is a giveaway to the wealthiest Americans. who would receive an average tax cut of at least $150.000. while inevitably forcing drastic cuts on those most in need.
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I seek recognition to speak on this important issue. The Acting CHAIR. Is the gentleman opposed to the amendment?
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I guess were going to spend the next I dont know how many minutes talking about something thats not the Presidents budget. Its an attempt to be misleading about what the Presidents budget does because it leaves out all the content. leaves out the substance. You look at the Republican budget. theyve got a lot of sections on policy. You look at the other alternatives that are being presented. they have alternatives and policy statements. This is a bunch of numbers without the explanation. Now. do the Democrats. for example. think that the President invested enough in his budget in LIHEAP. the lowincome energy program for lowincome individuals. We actually have a majority in our caucus that thinks the President should have put a little more into that. But thats only the kind of detail you would know if you went through the Presidents budget. not this thing that Mr. MULVANEY claims is the Presidents budget. which its just not. So just to be clear: This is not the Presidents budget. and therefore it obviously is a political gimmick. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. may I inquire as to how much time is remaining? The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 5 minutes remaining. and the gentleman from South Carolina has 4 minutes remaining.
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself 2 minutes. Lets talk a little bit about energy policy. One of the things you wouldnt know from the document that Mr. MULVANEY put forward claiming its the Presidents budget is that the President actually provides the resources to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to help police speculators in the oil market. Because what were seeing today is that. because of conditions around the world. a lot of those are being taken advantage of by people who are engaged in excessive speculation on the oil market. driving it up. But the Republican budget doesnt want the cop on the beat. The Republican budget doesnt want to police the speculators because. you know what. theyre just doing fine. But again. Mr. MULVANEYs budgetwhat he pretends is the Presidents budgetyou wouldnt know that. But if you looked in the Presidents real budget. you would know that kind of thing. Thats why this exercise is such a farce. Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. if the gentleman from South Carolina is prepared to close. I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. my friend from South Carolina wants to play makebelieve today. but the reality is that this is not the Presidents budget. and weve already shown you the Presidents budget. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida .
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself the balance of the time. Again. we can stand here all we want and play lets pretend. The reality is that the budget thats before us is not the Presidents budget. As I indicated earlier. the Democratic alternative later takes the framework of the Presidents budget and adopts some of the policies of the Presidents budget. We dont accept every single spending proposal or spending cut which is laid out in great detail here. But that presents a framework. And I should say to my colleagues that one of the things you would not know from reading this Republican version of the Presidents proposal is that. unlike the Republican budget. the Presidents plan does not end the Medicare guarantee. It does not extend tax breaks for the highest income Americans. It doesnt provide another windfall tax cut for those Americans financed by increasing taxes on middleincome Americans. It doesnt cut the transportation budget by 46 percent next year. at a time when we have high unemployment in the construction industry. The Presidents budget doesnt do that. The Republican budget does do that. We will later present that balanced approach that says. in order to tackle our deficits. we have to make some cuts. some tough cuts. Congress has already made $1 trillion in cuts. We have more cuts. But we should also close some of those special interest tax loopholes for the purpose of reducing the deficit. because if we dont do that. it means that were providingessentially asking nothing of the very wealthy. and that means we have to reduce the deficit at the expense of everybody else in America. So lets end the charade. Lets end this game of makebelieve. This is not the Presidents budget. and unless theres some of our colleagues who want to play fantasyland. I suggest we get down to reality. and thats why were opposing this document. the Mulvaney amendment. With that. I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. All time for debate has expired.The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina .
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I thank the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus for yielding to me and. again. join my colleagues in thanking him for his leadership. as well as the chairman of our CBC Budget Committee. Mr. SCOTT. the work that Congresswoman MOORE does on this committee. and all the others that have gathered here. And I thank my good friend for a vigorous debate. I would only say to you that in the course of our debate this evening and today. weve heard of the mountain of debt and the need to cut. cut. cut. It is all right to have a difference of opinion. but what I would argue is that there are documented economists that say that if you invest in human capital. if you invest in people. then you build up the economy. you make things. you make things in America. I dont want to leave Americans. if you will. on the trash heap of despair. I dont want to leave bodies straddled all along the highways. those who are knocking on doors of colleges. those who are trying to get into primary and secondary education. seniors who are cast out on the streets out of nursing homes. Thats where were going. The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Date: 2012-03-28
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I thank the gentleman. So I am standing here to try to end the elimination of Medicare and the destruction of jobs and the taking of money from the poor. The CBC budget is responsible in that its ending the mortgage interest deductions for vacation homes and yachts. It provides additional tax relief for the middle class. It provides a $25 billion increase for education and job training. $50 billion in transportation infrastructure. creating jobs. rolling back the harmful cuts to American Federal employees. recognizing that they provide services that are needed. $12 billion above the Presidents budget regarding NASA. with advanced research and development programsthats the genius of the 21st century. providing more funding for the National Science Foundation. And. yes. we believe in justice. We support full funding of the Department of Justice. with funding for Cops on the Beat. Second Chance. the civil rights division. I will tell you that the message tonight has to be that we dont want to take food from poor people. We dont want to make it harder for lowincome students to get a college degree. squeeze funding for research. education. infrastructure. We want to take people off that trash heap of despair and let them walk into glory. Lets support the CBC budget.