macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2011-03-15
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. soaring gas prices are impacting Americans all over the country. With gas costing nearly $4 a gallon. drivers are having to rethink how they get around. With families and businesses tightening their budgets. rising gas prices are exactly what they dont need exactly when they dont need it. Thats why I am calling on the IRS to increase the gas mileage deduction. like it did in 2005 and 2008. to ease the pain at the pump for taxpayers. Taxpayers want. need and deserve this fair. simple and commonsense solution: for us to tap Americas homegrown energy resources right here. right now. Call the White House. The number is 2024561414. Tell them to get with it.
Date: 2011-03-15
Speaker: AUSTIN SCOTT (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Georgia

To my colleague from Georgia. I want to thank you for your lead on this and for sharing your time with me. Mr. Speaker. this past November the American people sent a clear message that they want and demand that representatives in Washington get our fiscal house in order. In fact. our very livelihoods as Americans and that of our future generations depend on it. Now. Americans understand and we as Republicans understand that we cannot eliminate this deficit with one piece of legislation. but they do expect Congress to work continuously to reduce spending. excessive spending in all areas of the government. Mr. Speaker. last week. it was announced that Februarys deficit reached a record $223 billion. The Houses continuing resolution simply cut $100 billion. approximately 2 weeks worth of Februarys deficit. and yet the Democrats refer to that as reckless cuts. 2 weeks worth of Februarys deficits that we attempted to reduce. Today. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for this continuing resolution. which will once again reduce the Federal budget deficit. this time by $6 billion. No. its not enough. but it is a step in the right direction. House Republicans recognize that we need to do more to reduce the deficit. We also know that the country expects the President and Senator REID to accept their responsibility for this fiscal reality that they have helped create and to work with the House. the House as a whole. to reduce this deficit.
Date: 2011-03-16
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

I enjoyed the comments of my good friend. Mr. BACA. from San Bernardino County. I have some correspondence from San Bernardino County that might interest him. According to the county offices. there is no one at the county that would support current NSP programs. period. The letters of support did not come from San Bernardino County. which is one of the hardest hit in the Nation. In fact. the county might have supported the current NSP. but this is before they fell victim to complete lack of direction from HUD. mixed messages from HUD. and gross misallocation of awards that were released. As it applies to my bill. the county says. "We believe it is a means for Congress to get its financial house in order. just like the challenges we are facing at the local level."
Date: 2011-03-16
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

I reclaim my time. If it had been Germans for Affordable Housing. I would have opposed it. If it had been Italians for Affordable Housing. I would have opposed it. Had it been Irish Germans for Affordable Housing at $137 million. I would have opposed it. Understand. these are taxpayer dollars from people who lost their houses. people who are behind in their payments. people who are facing foreclosure. and none of this money does one thing to help you. It was not an equitable application based on who got money and how they got it. In fact. a lot of these private groups write off 17 percent off the top for overhead and costs17 percent. Now. we talked about banks. When we lent banks the money in TARP 1. they paid us interest. We paid money because we got our money back. Freddie and Fannie. the money we allocated to them. we are charging them 10 percent interest and they have to pay us back. and the American public is furious at that. We just gave away $50 million to one private group. gave $78 million to another. $60 million to another. $50 million to another. And as my good friend JOE BACA says. Chicanos por la Causa. the poor group. got $137 million given to you. We are not charging you interest. We gave you the money. Now. are we helping housing this country? No. Housing starts fell 22 percent in February. the lowest levels since 1959. It has done nothing for housing: 11.8 percent fall in singlefamily. 47 percent fall in multifamily. Tell me one thing this has done. It has not kept one person in their house. Now. lets assume this is supposed to be helping poor people buy houses. You just lost your house. In Hawaii. a person making $73.825 can buy a house through these organizations. A person in California making over $68.000 can buy a house through these organizations. A group in Virginia. $74.000. New Jersey. $78.000. Massachusetts. $72.000. Utah. $75.000. Alaska. $76.000. Colorado. $73.000. New Hampshire. $79.000. So a group. an entity. a State. a county. a city can buy a house. They have to sell it for less than they have in it. and they can sell it to people making more than the person who may have lost the house. Now. how in the world does that do one thing for poor people? It does not do one thing for poor people. Now lets talk about jobs. If we had invested $1 billion in the construction industry to build houses. you would have got $2.8 billion in economic activities.
Date: 2011-03-16
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

If you would have invested $1 billion. you would have generated $2.8 billion in economic activities: $5.5 million in wages. $138 million in income for small businesses. $156 million in corporate profits. $1.98 billion in spending on goods and services from the above three line items. It is huge. So if we are talking about jobs. lets create jobs. Now. they say we have had no alternative to what they did. In 2008. I endorsed a bill and introduced it called the PublicPrivate Partnership Community Stabilization Act. It took government dollars and invested them with private groups to do the same thing. to buy houses that were foreclosed upon and rehab them in communities. And when the houses were sold. guess what? The money would have been paid back to the Federal Government. We would have probably made a profit. We wouldnt have given a dime away. We would have made money on doing the same thing. Now. the other side talks about abandoned houses. Not a dime of this money can be used for eminent domain. so either the house is for sale or it cant be bought. It cant be foreclosed upon by the government through eminent domain. So to say that some private group could not have bought this house and rehabbed it themselves is ludicrous. because the house has to be for sale. Now. this group can go out and buy the house. demolish it and end up with a vacant lot. They can go out and buy a house. rehab it and sell it for a dollar. 10. any amount they want to sell it for. to anybody they want to sell it to. as long as it is less than they have in it. I had a bill passed out of this House that Mr. FRANK cosponsoredhe thought it was a good billthat allowed banks to take foreclosed properties and lease them for 5 years. If you want to get rid of foreclosed properties. allow banks to take the property. rehab it. put it on the marketplace. or lease it out for 5 years. It would have done the same thing. and perhaps banks would not have driven the marketplace down on resales because they were glutted with foreclosures. We could have taken these houses. leased them. and in 5 years when the market turned around. they could have sold them. And guess what. They could have given a lease option to the person losing the house to stay in the house for 5 years and buy it back at the end of 5 years. It would have at least helped foreclosure projects.
Date: 2011-03-16
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

I seem to have hit a nerve with my good friends on the other side of the aisle when I said Chicanos Por la Causa. It is not who it went to if it is not a government agency. if it was Germans for Affordable Housing. It is $137 million that I object to going to a group that is a nongovernment entity that has the money that we will not get back. And we keep talking about letters of support. Now. if you are a city. a county. or if you are one of these nonprofit groups that received the money. you would be an absolute hypocrite to take the money and then not send a letter saying. thank you for the money. I think the money was well spent because you gave it to me to spend. Nobody would take money that they didnt want to take.
Date: 2011-03-16
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chair. I appreciate my good friend admitting that were giving the money away. because we are. I struck a nerve for some reason when everybody keeps bringing up Chicanos Por La Causa for $137 million. The reason I think its egregious is we gave $1.3 billion away to nongovernment entities. And this one entity got 10 percent of all the nongovernment funding that went out. Nobody has mentioned that I mentioned other groups that got $50 million. $70 million. $60 million. $50 million each. I mentioned those groups. But what did HUD say about the money? When I quizzed Mercedes Marquez of HUD. her quote was "The money is going to homeowners and to American citizens." The problem I have with this. how do you feel about the people who lost the home? Youve got a family. they put money into the home. The last couple of years have been tough. They couldnt repair the plumbing. they couldnt replace the appliances. they couldnt afford to replace the broken window. they couldnt paint the house because their house was in foreclosure. They lost that house. Now. were spending $7 billion. and we have not helped one person in this country remain a homeowner. If your house is going into foreclosure. youre going to lose it. And these dollars are going to be spent to rehab your house and sell it to somebody else. Wake up. America.
Date: 2011-03-16
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

Well. my good friend Mr. FRANK knows you can go to any land title company and theyll tell you who owns the property: either the person lost it to a bank that had a loan on it or the bank owns it now. and if they didnt have a loan on it. they still own the property. And if the propertys been abandoned. under rules of public safety. the city can go and demolish a property for public safety measures. But the difference isIm glad that
Date: 2011-03-16
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

My good friend Mr. FRANK brought up a good point. He said. Well. show me where any of these egregious things and illegal things have occurred where somebody has cut somebody a deal. Well. I cant show you any because there are no requirements. You could take one of these nonprofit. nongovernment entities out here that bought a house. They have $180.000 in the house. One of the board members cousins could buy that house for $100.000. and it does not violate the requirements within the bill because it says you have to sell that house for less than the acquisition and rehabilitation prices. It does not say how much less. It says that you must not exceed an amount. So my good friend is absolutely correct. I cannot show you an egregious act because there is no egregious act defined within the legislation. And thats the problem with the bill. I believe we are trying to say that the Republicans are on the side of the taxpayers. We believe that we need to do everything we can in this country to create jobs. And if we leave $7 billion in the economy based on the basic money multiplier of 10 percent. it creates $70 billion worth of economy and generation. We believe in that. We do believe in fair rules. And we believe that if a person has to watch their home go into foreclosure. and they live in California. and they watch a county. a city. or a nonprofit group buy that home. that they can sell that home to someone for $68.000 and all that person can do that lost their home is wipe the tears away.
Date: 2011-03-16
Speaker: HERRERA BEUTLER (republican)
Chamber: H

changed their vote from "aye" to no." Messrs. GENE GREEN of Texas and RUPPERSBERGER and Ms. LEE changed their vote from "no" to "aye." So the motion was rejected. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Date: 2011-03-16
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

Im not opposed to this amendment. This amendment only deals with stage three of a project that should have only been one phase. Now. I wish they would have talked about phase two because I wish you would study where the money went on phase two. Because in phase two alone. we give away $1.3 billion to nongovernment entities. incorporated businesses that are nonprofit. But you have to say we did not stop a foreclosure. We just gave away in NSP2 $1.3 billion. Of that. Neighborhood Lending Partners received $50 million. They do not have to pay it back. Now. they can take that $50 millionIm sure theyre a very reputable company. Im not accusing anybody of anything. But they can sell those houses for any amount to whomever they want as long as its below the price they have invested in business. Community Builders. Inc.. $78.6 million. Los Angeles Neighborhood Housing. Services. Inc.. $60 million. Neighborhood Lending Partners of West Florida. Inc.. $50 million. Chicanos Por la Causa. Inc.. $137 million. I wish we would have taken the time to review those and say how was the money spent. but HUD did some work for us. So lets see what HUD did. HUG and OIG audited the State of Kansas Neighborhood Stabilization Program. NSP1. and found that the State improperly obligated more than $12 million of its NSP1 funds. HUD and OIG audited the Sacramento Housing Redevelopment Agency of Sacramento. California. and found the agency did not administer its NSP funds in accordance with HUD rules and regulations. Specifically. it allowed ineligible properties to be rehabilitated. did not adequately monitor projects. which resulted in ineligible costs. permitted the developer to make unnecessary upgrades and overinflated construction budgets. did not ensure that it met the reporting requirements. and lacked management controls. I wish we would have audited this one in this amendment. too. HUD and OIG audited the city and county of Denver. Colorado. NSP1. and found that the city improperly obligated more than $1.5 of its NSP funds by recording its funds as obligated. HUD and OIG reviewed the city of Chattanooga. Tennessee. and found that the city generally administered its program. however sometimes inconsistent with identifying obligations and was not always accurate on reporting to HUD. On Louisville. Kentucky. again. very similar to the previous. Augusta. Georgia. Did not have internal controls in place to perform continuous and routine monitoring of its obligation process to ensure its obligations were processed as intended. HUD and OIG reviewed Clark County. Nevada NSP and found that Clark County needs to revise its written procedures and developer agreements to ensure that properties to be sold to eligible home buyers will be sold at a price permitted by NSP requirements. which means they probably were selling it at too much money. So although I do support the amendment at hand. I wish it would have reviewed phase one and two. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2011-03-16
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chair. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I disagree. Its not time to amend and pretend. Its time to end. The problem with this program is I highlighted you a few violations. but its really hard to violate the program requirements because there are so few requirements. It says. Were going to give you money. You can buy property. you can demolish houses. You can buy property. you can rehabilitate those properties. You have vast guidelines on how you rehabilitate them. In fact. an organization is not even required to have competitive bids. I can say I need some framing done. I can lend a sole source contract. Only one person appliedthats the person I asked to applyand I can pay them the moneys I deem appropriate. It says you have to sell the house for less than you have in it. It doesnt say you should attempt to try to sell at fair market value. although I have given you a list previously of how much you can make. which is quite a bit of money. and buy these houses. It just says you cannot sell them for more. It does not restrict them on who you sell them to. it does not restrict on whose affiliation you have that might be buying them. In fact. its almost impossible to have a conflict of interest because theres conflict designed within the bill. So we can say lets amend and pretend. but lets just end. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2011-03-16
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

Thank you for yielding. I totally support the gentleman from Virginias amendment. This is doing the right thing. It is saying. were going to take a billion dollars back of your money. the taxpayers. and were going to pay off the deficit that weve created for you. Its about time we start paying down the debt. We cannot continue to spend dollars we dont have. Forty percent of every dollar we spend today is financed through the Treasury because we dont have the money. Were spending deficit dollars and it has to stop. But I want to return to the argument that my good friend makes. And I respect my good friend. He knows that. Somebody owned a home sometime. someplace. somewhere. Now. the individual who owned it. because it wasnt created by a miracle. Somebody built the house. somebody sold it to somebody. the individual might have gotten a loan on it from the bank. If the individual defaulted on the loan. the bank might have taken the house back. But the Federal Government and the local agencies look at taxes. We look at income taxes. The local governments. the city. the county. looks at property taxes. Somebody. some institution. is listed on the property tax bill. Now. at some point in time. theyre going to continue to notice the owner. whoever it might be. If its an heir. youre going to get a notice. and its going to say you did not pay your property taxes. At some point in time. that piece of property. home. vacated. abandoned. whatever it may be. is going up for a sale for property taxes.
Date: 2011-03-16
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

I reclaim the balance of my time. If its a public safety issue. a local government has a right to demolish property based on public safety. That assessment could be placed against the tax bill. At some point in time. the local government. if they so choose. if nobody wants to pay a dollar for that property. can buy it based on the tax basis for a dollar. The problem with that is. once the government entity buys the property. its taken off the tax rolls. Some of my colleagues have talked about police and fire and the benefit to them. The worst thing you can do is eliminate funding through taxation to police and fire.
Date: 2011-03-16
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

I reclaim the balance of my time. If you go to any title company. it will list who the owner of record is. Regardless. if you can find that entity or individual. it will list it. Regardless of who it is. at some point in time. it goes to a tax sale. At that point in time. the local government or an investor can buy it at a much reduced price for just the tax lien against it. and if its abandoned and demolished and not worth anything. the tax bill is going to be very low. So somebody can pick up a very good deal on a piece of property by waiting for a tax sale. But if they choose not to and they want to go out and just buy it as a city or a county. they can do that and get a very good deal on it. So to assume that because nobody can find an owner out there. somebody is listed. and the government has a right to foreclose based on taxes. I ask for an "aye" vote on the amendment.
Date: 2011-03-16
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

If you want to talk about attractive nuisances. lets talk about next April when people have to pay their taxes. Youre going to find out that government has become an incredible attractive nuisance to most people. Were talking about middle class is shrinking. yeah. were taxing them to death. and were not only taxing them to death. but were spending money on programs like this that is not an investment but is just a giveaway of tax dollars. Now we say we cant find the data to support that we bought 100.000 properties. but lets say we bought 100.000 properties. Somebody has the money. the $6 billion going on $7 billion. that weve given them. Thats about 20.000 homes per State. Now you break that down to highimpact counties. compared to the millions of homes out there that are in foreclosure. these 100.000 homes have already been abandoned or foreclosed. I will say abandoned because the other side of the aisle wants to talk about abandoned homes. but theyre homes that somebody does not live in anymore. and the people who lost them. yes. they lost them. And how many jobs were created? Nobody can definitively give me a number because nobody knows for sure how much money was spent on jobs. Now. we can say we spent $6 billion. but understand clearly. we bought properties with the bulk of that money. Now. how much money did we spend after the local groups. the nonprofits took 17 percent off the top for overhead and expenses. how much did we spend for jobs? Now. if we had taken that $6 billion. going on $7 billion. and invested it in residential construction. just $1 billion. as I said. in residential construction creates $5.5 million in wages. It creates $1.98 billion in spending on goods and services as a result of the new earnings and profits that were created through that. Now. those goods and services. those companies employ workers. The wages are paid to workers. So you can definitively come up with a number based on a $1 billion investment that we would generate in the economy. Now. we spent $6 billion. and if we were able to create what $1 billion would have created in private residential construction. were probably lucky. but the problem with that is investing in residential construction is different than giving $6 billion away of the taxpayers money. Now. the people listening to this debate understand. when you write your check to the Federal Government next month. we just gave away $6 billion of it. were going to give away another billion. Now. that infuriates me. I would assume it infuriates you. You tell me. middle class America. what this does to help you? I told you the amounts earlier of how much you can earn to buy a house or how little you might have to pay for the house. depending on whoever bought the house what they want to charge and who they want to sell it to. So the basis I would argue here is the amendment does nothing. I oppose it. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2011-03-16
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

The facts speak for themselves. When you can say $1.3 billion was given away to nongovernmental agenciesand I have listed the groups. and I have told you how many millions of your dollars were given to these groups that they get to keepthey are not coming back to us right now. These people are going to keep these moneys. and there is a wide array of things they can use them for. This was a bad investment. In fact. it was not an investment. It was a bad giveaway. I yield back the balance of my time.