macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2013-03-15
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the distinguished ranking member of this committee. and I thank the floor managers. I particularly thank Mr. HINOJOSA for his long service on workforce issues and about higher education issues to the proponent of the amendment. Certainly. we know that reporting is important. What I want to focus on. Madam Chairwoman. is what America is all about. We are. in fact. the land of opportunity and dreams. We are the richest country in the world. and our benefit and our success has come because we have invested in people. As we watched the Depression and the era of World War II and our soldiers coming home. prosperity began when we gave them the GI Bill. and here we are today. trying to undermine under H.R. 803 the very opportunity in States for those people who are still seeking to climb the ladder. By blockgranting these 35 programs and shifting to our State governments individual programs that are to serve our adults and youth and farm workers and dislocated workers. we are going down a road of no return. We are eliminating the priority of service delivery for lowincome adults and outofschool youth. We are eliminating the thought processes that are necessary to know what rural neighborhoods or communities and urban communities need. Texas is one of the largest States in the Union. and I can assure you that eliminating separate training funds for youth programs is devastating. It was devastating when we lost the summer youth job program. which Id always said would have been a more effective program if youd joined it with training. In our local communities. thats what we didwe joined summer youth jobs with training. Now youre telling us that we will be eliminated from doing that. Rather than suggesting that the problems of this deficit are always on the least. it would be best for us to chronicle how we got herebillions of dollars in the Iraq war. the Afghanistan war. Medicare part D. the bailout.
Date: 2013-03-15
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman. It is important to support the Democratic alternative. which streamlines and improves the coordination of training programs. which puts the dollars in community associations that are there on the ground. Madam Chair. America is not good with this bill. H.R. 803. but it is good with the Democratic alternative. which invests in people and makes America great.
Date: 2013-03-18
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. $5 trillion in surplus was extinguished in the last Republican administration. It had been created by President Clinton. The Affordable Care Act will help provide the health coverage that is needed by millions of Americans. I rise today to speak particularly about Texas. Some 24 percent of the population of Texas is uninsured. and yet our State government has refused to accept expanded Medicaid. So today. Mr. Speaker. I make a public plea on behalf of the millions of Texans who get up and work every day and do not have health insurance. and to have a State government that is ignoring their plea. and that is to have expanded Medicaid to provide health insurance for working Texans and poor Texans. those that work. as well. below the minimum wage. It seems selfish that the concerns of those who lead State government are all political and not in any way concerned about the mothers. fathers. and children who all of the medical professionals from county governments to private practice have said that the expanded Medicaid coverage. if taken by the State of Texas. like Florida and like Ohio. will save lives. Do it now.
Date: 2013-03-19
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank both of my colleagues. I thank the gentlelady and the manager of this rule. I vigorously rise to oppose this rule. the underlying bill. the Republican proposal for a budget. And I really do speak from the heart. because when you go home. it is often the best time of the service to your Nation because you get to see hardworking Americans. no matter what region you live in. And so Im very proud to associate myself and support the Van Hollen Democratic budget substitute. the Congressional Black Caucus. and the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The singular theme that rides through all of these budgets. which is the very question that is raised. whether or not its a teenager coming out looking for a summer job. whether or not its a college student with their bright. new diploma holding it up. looking for Americas great opportunity. or whether its someone who has worked for a period of time. wellqualified. but just cant find the job to get back into the market. I know there are those who are listening. my colleagues. who have constituents like that. Every single budget. including the Van Hollen budget. the Democratic budget. helps to create jobs. gets rid of the sequester and. in actuality. brings back the 775.000 or 750.000 jobs lost by the Ryan budget. plus more. The Congressional Black Caucus focuses on maintenance for public transit and highway and airports. creating jobs. The Congressional Progressive Caucus focuses on making work pay and emergency unemployment compensation. But heres the story that I think is under the underlying Ryan budgetgood friend of ours. of course. we work togetherand the underlying premise. I am tired of raising up the generational fight. Just because the Greatest Generation fought in World War II. are we to say to our children and grandchildren. "You know what. we dont want to burden you when the military calls you. when your Nation needs you. we dont want to burden you"? Theres no way to protect what our grandchildren and children will have with this budget. other than the fact that the Democratic budget invests in people.
Date: 2013-03-19
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

When you have a preschool program. when you have programs that transition women out of their homes after raising their children and into jobs. when you have a program that allows young people with a college degree to get a job. when you have programs that invest in infrastructure and build highways and bridges that America is begging forlike the Hoover Damthat our grandchildren and children will receive in America. that we invested in. theyll receive a gift. And theyll be able to work with their hands and their minds. and they will have the ability to pay down any debts and theyll close any deficit. And theyll be grateful to do it. because America will be the greatest Nation that it can. Dont constantly pound us with our grandchildren and our children. Right now. today. America can afford to pay for what we are doing in the Van Hollen Democratic budget because we are creating jobs. were building infrastructure. were making America greaterthe very America that people around the world admire. So I want to vote for a growth budget. I want to vote for one that reduces unemployment under 5 percent. I want to vote for one that lifts America so that our children and grandchildren will have the benefit of all that weve done for them. and theyll have the benefit of paying for what America promises. Vote for Americas promise. Vote against the Ryan budget.
Date: 2013-03-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from New York . the ranking member of the Small Business Committee. who recognizes how important it is to keep our economy moving forward. not backwards.
Date: 2013-03-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. actually the Republican budget does follow some of our European friends. but follows them in the wrong way. The strategy places like the U.K. have followed is an austerity approachimmediate deep cuts. And guess what that did? That sent them back into a recession. And again. the umpire around this place. the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. said that if you take the approach in our Republican colleagues budget. youll have 750.000 fewer jobs by the end of this year. That is not a growth strategy. We cannot afford. here in the United States. the Europeanstyle austerity plan that is hurting those economies. With that. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California . the ranking member on the Financial Services Committee.
Date: 2013-03-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

for yielding me this time. Today I rise in strong opposition to the Republican budget. a budget that makes absurd claims to reducing the deficit by repealing crucial government authority to protect our economy. Lest we forget. the Lehman Brothers disorderly bankruptcy sparked the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Should a megabank fail in the future. the DoddFrank Act specifically authorizes regulators to dissolve the failing firm. fire its executives. wipe out shareholders. and deny the claims of creditors. The gentleman from Wisconsin calls this a bailouterroneouslyconcluding that the DoddFrank Act enshrines "too big to fail" when. in fact. it provides all of the necessary tools to end it. If DoddFrank actually did what the Republicans say. why does no large firm want to be designated as "systematically significant"? The Republican proposal also deceptively suggests that a repeal of the liquidation authority generates real savings to the American taxpayer. The DoddFrank legislation designed this authority to pay for itself over time. with any initial upfront costs being completely recouped by selling assets and imposing an assessment. after the resolution. on financial institutions with more than $50 billion in assets. The law specifically states that taxpayers shall bear no losses from the exercise of any authority under the liquidation title. Once again. the Republican budget is misleading and dishonest. The National Journal has called the Republican proposal a "budget gimmick." and even The Wall Street Journal dismissed it as mere "budget quirks." If the authority to wind down a megafirm is repealed. the American taxpayer would be called on again to bear the risk of another financial crisis like in 2008. which the GAO found cost the U.S. economy $13 trillion. Mr. Chairman. I urge all of my colleagues to reject this Republican budget.
Date: 2013-03-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. we actually have a kind of a yardstick that we can use to measure whether these budget approaches have a balanced approach. meaning that they ask for shared responsibility. You have the bipartisan SimpsonBowles commission report. and they said we should reduce our deficits in a steady way through a combination of revenue. but also targeted cuts. This Republican budget is totally lopsided. It provides tax windfalls to folks at the very top. and balances the budget at the expense of everybody else. What weve proposed. actually. when you take into account the $1.5 trillion in cuts we made over the last couple of years and the $700 billion in revenue from January. and what we have in this budget. we actually have a higher ratio of cuts to revenue than that bipartisan SimpsonBowles plan when you look at everything thats embedded in it. So thats measured against a bipartisan approach. and that gets us to where we need to be without hitting all the other priorities we have in our country. With that. let me yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan . the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee. who has looked at these numbers backwards and forwards. and I look forward to his comments.
Date: 2013-03-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I yield myself such time as I may consume. Do you know whats wrong. Mr. Chairman? Whats wrong is to pretend to the American people that you can have it all ways. Whats wrong is to pretend that youve got a budget thats in balance in 10 years and pretend that youre getting rid of all of the Affordable Care Act. all of ObamaCare. Whats wrong is going around the country demagoguing $715 billion in Medicare savings. which we achieve by ending overpayments to private insurance companies and Medicare. and then using it to balance your budget and then saying. We didnt use it to balance our budget. Thats what people dont like. is people trying to have it all ways. We have taken an approach to steadily and rapidly reduce our deficits in a way that doesnt interfere and hurt economic and job growth right now. And we do it in a balanced way. And what I find astounding is to hear our Republican colleagues talk about the deficit and debt in one breath and then talk about all those tax breaks and expenditures that disproportionately benefit very wealthy people in the other breath and then say they wont close one single tax loophole for wealthy people for the purpose of reducing the deficitnot one dime in their budget for that purpose. And yet theyre willing to hit Medicaid to the tune of $110 billion. Theyre willing to hit the food and nutrition program by over $100 billion. Theyre ready to hit transportation funding by over 15 percent in this budget window. And yet theyre not willing to close one of those more than $4 trillion in tax loopholes to reduce the deficit. I think thats wrong. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania. a member of the Budget Committee .
Date: 2013-03-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I would just point out to my colleagues that the Affordable Care Act. with the reforms it made to Medicare. we extended the life of the Medicare trust fund as part of that effort going forward.
Date: 2013-03-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

That means. as in your budget. that we will help reduce the deficit by whatever amount it was. But what we do not do in our budget is fund tax breaks for folks at the very top by raising them on folks in the middle. Listen. let me say just one other thing here. Mr. Chairman. Weve had four balanced budgets in this country in the last 40 years. It wasnt under President Reagan. It wasnt under the first President Bush. It wasnt under the second President Bush. It was 1998. 1999. 2000. 2001. It was under President Clinton. And then President Bush came in and did a big tax cut in 2001. putting us out of balance for a long period of time. During the period of time when the budget was in balance the last four times out of 40 years. the revenue that was coming in was higher than it is in any year in the Republican budget thats before us now. What that tells you is that their budget approach is trying to seek balance on the backs of everybody else by really cutting into those important investments that have helped power our economy by violating important commitments to seniors and. in the end. by raising taxes on middleincome people. Why else would they not have joined Democrats in sending a policy statement to the Ways and Means Committee that says: When you go about eliminating tax preferences. dont hit middleincome taxpayers in the process. In fact. Mr. Chairman. if you look at the mortgage interest deduction. for example. the mortgage interest deduction really helps middleincome peoplehomeowners. So in addition to saying: Ways and Means Committee. when you do tax reform. dont hit middleincome taxpayers. we specifically said: Dont take away the mortgage interest deduction for middleincome taxpayers. Again. all our Republican colleagues voted against that. Theyve been talking about tax reform for 3 years now. Weve never seen a piece of paper from them as to how they would do it. which is why we wanted to make sure that they dont do it in certain ways that help middleincome people. But no. cant do that. So lets make sure that as we address our deficit issues. we do it in a way that calls for shared responsibilities. not another round of tax breaks for the wealthy on the backs of everybody else. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Wisconsin . one of our distinguished members of the Budget Committee.
Date: 2013-03-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. just to be very clear on what the Senate Democratic plan does and what the House Democratic plan does with respect to revenue. again. we heard from Governor Romney and others last year that there are about $4 trillion in these distortions and preferences in the Tax Code that help very wealthy people. What we say is. we should get out some of that clutter. some of those preferences. and use some of that to help reduce the deficit. And we say at the same time when you do tax reform. dont touch middleincome taxpayers. and when we asked our Republican colleagues to give us that assurance in the form of an amendment in the Budget Committee. they all voted "no." So. yes. we think that you can eliminate some of the tax breaks and preferences that Mr. MCCLINTOCK just talked about. and you can use some of them to reduce the deficit. But the Republican budget wont use one dime of those to help reduce the deficit. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington State who is both on the Budget Committee and on the Ways and Means Committee. Mr.
Date: 2013-03-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. We heard earlier about the United States becoming Spain and others have compared it to Greece. The reality is that right now the danger is that we follow the European austerity measures that weve seen do damage to economies like that in the U.K.. and thats what our Republican colleagues are calling for in their budget. Yes. we need to reduce our longterm deficits. but we also need to make sure we keep the facts straight. And in the Republican budget pamphlet this year. they show this big tidal wave of red ink. which I believe the chairman showed earlier today. thats based on an outdated Congressional Budget Office analysis that doesnt take into account much of the deficit reduction weve done over the last couple of years. including the revenue in the fiscal cliff agreement. Thats why the organization FactCheck.org said that the Republican budget proposal exaggerates future growth of the Federal debt in a chart contained in their newly released budget plan. So we need to keep this in perspective. and thats what we do in our budget: we focus on economic growth now and economic growth in the future. And. yes. because of the reduction in the rate of increase in health care costs and using. actually. an assumption that the discretionary parts of our budget and mandatory we assume grow faster than the chairman asked the CBO to project. our budget comes into balance the same year as the Republican budget last year came into balance. but we do it without balancing it on the backs of other essential priorities that are important to the American people. With that. I yield 2 minutes to a terrific new member of the Budget Committee. the gentleman from Wisconsin
Date: 2013-03-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. just to be clear in terms of the Democratic proposals. if you take our budget proposal here together with the work that we have done over the last couple of years. which reduces spending by over $1.5 trillion. $700 billion in revenue. take that all together. means $4 trillion in deficit reduction over that amount. over the period of the window. and we do it in a balanced way. We dont do it the same time we are providing windfall tax breaks to folks at the very top. We dont do it on the backs of other important priorities. We do it by growing the economy and asking for shared responsibility. so we have shared prosperity in this country. I now yield 11/2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia. a member of the Judiciary Committee. Mr. JOHNSON.
Date: 2013-03-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think Mr. RIBBLE made some very. very important points for all of us in this debate. and that is: the reason you see spending rising in both budgets is primarily because we have so many more baby boomers becoming eligible for Medicare and Social Security. In fact. what this chart shows is that. over the 10year window. you are going to see about a 33 percent increase in the number of people eligible for Medicare and about a 30 percent increase in the number of people who are eligible for Social Security. So what we say in our budget is that. if we are going to meet our commitments to these seniors but also reduce our budget deficit. we have to do it in a balanced way. Because if we meet these commitments and at the same time are trying to reduce our deficit. one way to do it is the way the Republican budget does: to more than double the sequester cut in all the areas that are important to growing our economy. our infrastructure investment. our kids education. science and research. They also cut Medicaid. which affects a lot of those seniors on Medicare. About 20 percent of those seniors are also on Medicaid. But it is at the end of that 10year window that our Republican colleagues then move to their voucher plan. premium supportI dont care what you call it. The only way you are going to achieve any savings compared to the baseline number. CBO baseline that the chairman showed you. the only way you are going to do it is if you are capping the amount you are going to get so that seniors have to eat the costs and take the risks of rising health care. There is a better way to address that issue. and that is the way we approach it in our budget. And that is to build on the kind of reforms that we made in the Affordable Care Act in ObamaCare. which have helped and contributed to reducing the rapid rise in per capita health care costs and which. as I pointed out earlier. our Republican colleagues included in their own budget. So. yes. we have to deal with these drivers of costs. including health care. But the way we propose to do it is not by transferring or offloading those rising health care costs on the backs of the seniors. but by moving Medicare away from a strictly feeforservice system toward one where we reward the value of care over the volume of care. And that has achieved significant savings. and it has done so without any negative impact to Medicare beneficiaries. So very different approaches to this issue. Mr. RIBBLE pointed out there is spending going up that is to meet these commitments. But if you dont take a balanced approach like we do. you can only address those issues by undermining other very important national priorities. priorities that have always had bipartisan support in the past. I now yield 11/2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas. a member of the Financial Services Committee. Mr. GREEN.
Date: 2013-03-19
Speaker: AL GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I thank the ranking member for the time. Mr. Chairman. depending on your point of view. there is something in this budget for you to like and to love. If you like repealing the Affordable Care Act and replacing it with nothing. then you love this budget. If you like having senior citizens pay more for their pharmaceuticals in the twilight of life. then you love this budget. If you like having 26yearolds and under come off of the insurance policies that theyre currently on with their parents. then you love this budget. If you like the notion that health care should become wealth care in the richest country in the world. where one out of every 100 persons is a millionaire. then you love this budget. If you like the whole concept of having voucher care. as opposed to Medicare. then you really love this budget. My dear friends. I neither love it nor like it. Im against it. and I wont vote for it.