macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2011-03-16
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

I yield myself such time as I may consume. My good friend. she mentioned the Neighborhood Housing Services of Orange County. They got $7.5 million for 17 houses. Orange County. overall in the whole county. got $4.3 million for the whole county. You have to say. is that a good investment? We have spent $6 billion on this program. and were saying. lets not spend the last billion. And Congress could have rebuilt neighborhoods. There is only $1 billion left. Now I dont see that the U.S. neighborhoods have been rebuilt for $6 billion. I see $6 billion that has been given away of taxpayers moneys. And Orange County itself. which is a huge area. irrespective of the few examples that were given by my good friend. only got $4.3 million. Thats not equitable. San Bernardino County. one of the hardest hit counties in this country. got a mere $33.2 million. One of the hardest hit. Thats the county. That had to go to all these cities that did not receive any distribution in NSP1 or NSP2. nothing. And theyre having to takeand in Orange County. with $4.3 milliontake that and distribute it to all these cities that did not receive a dime. Thats not fair. And to say that we spent $6 billionand all the counties and cities havent been rehabilitated. its obviousand to say were going to spend $1 billion more. and thats going to solve the problem? No. its not. Its just going to take it and put us another $1 billion in debt that our children and our grandchildren are going to have to pay for. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2011-03-16
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

I yield myself such time as I may consume. The problem I have with the programI have just mentioned San Bernardino County. and according to the county. there is no one at the county level that would support the current NSP program. And they state very specifically the county might have supported the concept of NSP. but this is before they fell victim to a complete lack of direction from HUD. mixed messages from HUD. and gross misallocations of the awards that were released. And the county. in support of my bill. said. 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 government level. And not only is government facing challenges. the American people are facing challenges. Theyre working hard. Theyre trying to support their families. Theyre trying to make their house payments. Nothing in this last billion dollars will stop one foreclosure from occurring. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Arizona
Date: 2011-03-16
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

Madam Chair. I rise in opposition to the amendment. The Acting CHAIR . The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Date: 2011-03-16
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

I yield myself such time as I may consume. I guess the question should be how long do we need to wait? How many more billions of dollars needs to be given away? Weve already spent $6 billion. I guess we could spend more if somebody wanted to. And when we talk about phasing out a program. it speaks to the argument that we need to spend more money on a program and continue the program. I think weve already spent too much money.
Date: 2011-03-16
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

I reclaim my time. On this issue. how long we wait is predicated on how much we are going to spend. And my colleagues on this side of the aisle believe the American people. the taxpayers have given too much of their money away. and they are saying we want it stopped. and we want you to be responsible for this money. If this were our dollars. and were getting in her purse and my wallet and handing the money out. thats a prerogative we have. Thats not whats occurring. other than we are taxpayers too. Weve just got our hands in your pocket and your purse and spent your money on a giveaway program. I ask for a "no" vote. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2011-03-16
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

Madam Chair. I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time. The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
Date: 2011-03-16
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona . The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for up to 312 minutes.
Date: 2011-03-16
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

I yield myself such time as I may consume. The other point that is significant and that needs to be dealt with here is the $6 billion that has already been given away. That money continues to recycle with those groups. It should. As to the cities. the counties. the nonprofits. when they buy a house. refurbish it and sell it and when the money comes back at whatever level. they could take that money and buy another piece of property. Nothing in my bill does anything with the $6 billion thats out there. It just says: Were not going to give you another $1 billion. Were going to try to give that back to the taxpayers. If we could get the $6 billion back and could find a way to do it. I believe wed be trying to attack that vein. too. but that will not occur and cannot occur as the money has already been given away. Theyre going to continue to recycle it. hopefully to some benefithopefully somebody will benefit from thisbut its $6 billion given away. My colleague was exactly correct in his statements. As for the $1 billion that we have not given away. were saying it is time to stop giving away taxpayer dollars. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2011-03-16
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California .
Date: 2011-03-16
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

Madam Chair. the Congresswomans amendment does nothing to help atrisk borrowers. and the notification the Congresswoman proposes would apply only to community groups. leaders and speculators currently participating in the program. It is not a serious attempt to address the underlying problem homeowners are facing today. If we are going to have a notification requirement. it makes more sense to have the recipients of these funds to date notify taxpayers how much. in what way they have spent taxpayer dollars and what return taxpayers can expect from their investments. Unfortunately. the answer is: none. Many have questioned HUDs ability to properly monitor the use of such extraordinary amounts of money being spent at the State level and in various ways. The Inspector General of HUD has already identified multiple misuses of NSP money at the State level. The GAO has questioned the information system in place at HUD. and has questioned its ability to track the NSP funds. I wish the amendment had said: Please continue using the $6 billion in an appropriate way. and in some way. do everything you can to create jobs for the American workers with the $6 billion weve given you. It does not say that. and I cannot support the amendment the way it is drafted. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2011-03-16
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

I yield myself such time as I may consume. Well. I did not introduce an amendment because I introduced the bill. I think that bill speaks for itself. But I am glad that my good friend admitted that this was not meant to mitigate the foreclosure process for people going through. I am glad you admitted that. because that is not what your amendment says. It says that: such entities should contact such Members of Congress directly for assistance in mitigating foreclosed properties. You cant mitigate a foreclosure when you dont help anybody with the foreclosure. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona .
Date: 2011-03-16
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

I yield myself the balance of my time. As much as I respect my good friendand she knowswe have worked together on a lot of issues. and I dont believe anything between us has ever been personal in all the years we have known each other. And nothing in this debate is personal. We both are well intended. We both really want to help the American people. And I say that from the heart. and you know that. And I know your efforts are for the right purposes. But good people can disagree in a good way. And on this amendment. I have to respectfully disagree. and I would ask for a "no" vote. I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California .
Date: 2011-03-16
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

I yield myself such time as I may consume. My friend has said that we need to determine the approximate number of foreclosed and abandoned properties that will be purchased or rehabilitated because of termination of NSP. That is impossible. We have no idea how many times the money will be recycled. because the $6 billion that is out there could be recycled over and over and over. We dont know. We dont know how much money is going to be given away to somebody who bought the house. how much is going to be taken back in the sale. So that is an unknown quantity. But my good friend did say that 72.000 units were impacted by NSP 1. So. America. for $6 billion you impacted 72.000 units. How do you feel about that? Now. I am not sure what we did to impact them. but we impacted them. We sure spent a lot of your money impacting them. Now. at the same time. we are asking HUD to do a study. That is like the fox guarding the hen house. I am really sorry. Because when I asked Mercedes Marquez of HUD at our committee hearing to discuss where the money went. she finally said. The money is going to homeowners and to American citizens. And they strongly support the program and they are strongly encouraging the President to veto this bill. should it get to him. So lets just have the very organization do a study on a program that they said they support and love and. if we are successful in getting the bill passed. would encourage the administration to veto it. That is the biggest conflict of interest I have ever had presented to me to vote on. but it is an easy conflict of interest that I say is a conflict of interest. I would strongly encourage my colleagues to vote "no." I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California .
Date: 2011-03-16
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

I yield myself such time as I may consume. Well. I know my good friend Mrs. MALONEY has the best of intentions in putting this amendment forward. but you are talking about the number of homes in each State that have been vacant 90 days or more and could ultimately receive funding under the NSP. Well. the homes are not eligible to receive funding. Entities are eligible to receive funding. Then those entities. whether they be government or private sector. can go buy those homes. The problem is they can buy any home they want to. The only restriction on the program is that you can only earn up to 120 percent of the median income in an area to qualify to buy the house. but it does not restrict the price of the home being bought by the agency or the nonprofit. They can buy virtually any home they want to. and that is one of the flaws in the bill. For example. if you have any home that has been vacant 90 days or more. well. I have a partner of mine and myself. we had four homes for sale in the last year that were on the market more than 90 days. The houses were in perfect condition. but yet they remained on the market for over 90 days. So based on this encouragement. one of these groups. whether it be a city. a county. a private entity that is not affiliated with government. could have bought those houses and resold the houses for far less than they paid for them. That is the flaw with this program here. We are saying that what this wants us to do here is congressional findings to the bill listing all 50 States and the District of Columbia in separate subparagraphs and the number of homes in each State that have been vacant 90 days or more and could be eligible to receive funding in NSP. What you mean is any home vacant for over 90 days would have to be listed. because there is not a dollar amount in the bill saying how much you can pay for a house. There is only a dollar amount saying how much a person can earn to buy the house. For example. if you live in Hawaii. you can make up to $73.825.20 a year and qualify to buy a home. In California. you can earn $68.416.80 a year and qualify to buy a home. It might be an $800.000 home. but you can still qualify. if they sell it to you cheap enough. In Virginia. you could earn $74.382 and buy a home. in New Jersey. $78.367. in Massachusetts. $72.384. in Utah. $75.044. in Alaska. $76.786. in Colorado. $73.131. and in New Hampshire. $79.411. So the concept of this program is just helping people at the lower rungs who are really struggling. I am not saying people arent struggling in these income brackets. That is not what I mean. But I dont want the American people to have the perception we are just trying to pick up deals and sell them to the lowest of income levels.
Date: 2011-03-16
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

Reclaiming my time. I was in the building industry from my early twenties. and the most excitement you could ever see on a persons face was when they bought a home and they were moving into that home and they thought about raising their family. I would love a country that every person in this country has the ability and the opportunity at some point in their life to buy a home. But. in some fashion. lenders have put people in positions to put them in homes that they could not afford. and those homes. in many cases the individuals lost those homes through foreclosures. And those people. who were wellintentioned. moved into homes that they could not afford because the lender perhaps did not describe it exactly or they thought the way the economy is going. in 3 or 4 or 5 years the house is going to be worth 40 percent more than I paid and I am going to make a lot of money. The problem is the market went the other way. as it did in 19741975. 19811983. 19901996. and recently in 2007 to current the market slid. And then were saying were going to go out and were going to ask to do a survey and were going to list any home throughout the United States in separate paragraphs that have been vacant for 90 days or more that could be eligible. Well. all of them would be eligible.
Date: 2011-03-16
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

Reclaiming my time. Mr. FRANK. what specifically has been said throughout this debate. as if were trying to help people at the lower rungs. which I have no problem with. but Im saying that there was not a restriction on the amount that could be paid for the house and there was not a requirement of how much it should be sold for. I ask for a "no" vote. I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York has 30 seconds remaining.
Date: 2011-03-16
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

Madam Chair. I rise to claim the time in opposition. The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Date: 2011-03-16
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

Some of the arguments that the gentlelady made are heartwrenching. You hate to think about homeless people. Veterans are suffering in this country. theres no doubt about it. Veterans are coming back. Some of them have problems from being on the front in combat. In our church every week. our pastor talks about that. and we pray for these veterans. You feel sorry for them. But we talk about elderly. we talk about veterans. we talk about children. we talk about homeless. Nothing in this bill prioritizes them in any fashion. There are groups that could be helped as a consequence of it. and I understand that. but nothing prioritizes. Im going to accept the gentleladys amendment because I have no problem with trying to determine the economic impact of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. I think theres been a huge impact on the economy because weve given away. to date. $6 billion of taxpayers money on this program. And I think we could have done a much better job at investing that money in another fashion that wouldnt have put the taxpayers at risk and perhaps created jobs in doing that. But I met with the NAHB. National Association of Home Builders. to talk about all the people in the industry out of work. Ive talked to BIA. talking about all the Building Industry Association members out of work. and theyre trying to put them to work. This bill does not help them. We talk about a giveaway to banks. In TARP 1. we lent money to banks. yes. and they paid it back with interest. Freddie and Fannie. yes. were lending money to Freddie and Fannie. Theyre paying 10 percent interest on the money. So to create this straw man out there of the bank giveaway and Wall Street and Freddie and Fannie is fallacious. Freddie and Fannie are paying 10 percent interest on the money. We did not just. the people who voted for the first half of TARP. vote to give banks money and forget it. go home. It was to stop a major run on the banks and to stop this economy from plummeting. And Bernanke and Paulson and the administration. everybody on both sides of the aisle agreed it had to be done. And the money was paid back. and we made money on it. Shock. This money was given away and we will not be getting it back. I yield 11/2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona .
Date: 2011-03-16
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

I would be happy to yield to the gentlelady. I was not meaning to be rude or forget about you.
Date: 2011-03-16
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

Madam Chair. I reclaim my time. I was going to allow for adequate time on that. but it was not a giveaway. It was a loan. Youre comparing $350 billion in the first half that was lent to lenders to stabilize the economy versus $700 billion that was a giveaway. Its my time. Madam Chair. The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 15 seconds remaining.
Date: 2011-03-16
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

I think were comparing things that have nothing to do with the bill before us. So we can talk about Wall Street. We can talk about banks. If anything. this has helped banks because its taken foreclosed properties that theyve had and its bought them. So we can add all these straw men to the debate that we want to. The thing is. should we give away taxpayer dollars? I say no and I ask for an "aye" on the gentleladys amendment. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentlewoman from Florida . The en bloc amendments were agreed to.
Date: 2011-03-17
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. our colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to refer to the socalled health care reform bill as the Affordable Health Care Act. There are a lot of questions 1 year after passage. But one question has been answered. It is not the Affordable Medical Care Act. It is the Unaffordable Medical Care Act. Why do I say that? Well. HHS has decided to give over 1.000 waivers to businesses. to unions. and now even to States because they find they cant afford what is required in the bill. Secondly. I havent met a single constituent whose health care cost by way of their insurance policies or programs has gone down. They have all gone up as a direct result of the bill passed on this floor and signed by the President. So lets at least have some truth in labeling. It is not the Affordable Health Care Act. It is increasingly becoming the Unaffordable Health Care Act.
Date: 2011-03-17
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Thank you very much. I was actually not going to speak on this rule until I heard the ranking member of the Rules Committee speak. and she made our point so eloquently I wanted to underscore it. I couldnt believe that she suggested that there was somehow a parity between national defense and NPR. She said. if were going to come here and talk about defunding NPR. then why shouldnt she get a shot at denying the Defense Department $8 billion or whatever it is. Thats the point were trying to make. We have a huge deficit. $228 billion in 1 month. In fact. it was the shortest month of the year. which just happened to be the total deficit for. I think. the entire year of 2007. You know. I dont know. I heard people on the other side of the aisle criticizing President Bush for deficits. Hes a piker compared to what were seeing right now in the White House. But the point is. how do we do anything here on the floor with respect to trying to bring spending under control if. as the gentlelady from New York suggests. we should treat equally the question of national defense and NPR? Thats what the American people are rejecting. Theyre saying to you. why dont you establish priorities the way we establish priorities. And to come to the floor and suggest that somehow NPR is contained in the Constitution. as is the subject of national defense. I think is. frankly. ludicrous. So I hope the American people are listening. This is a debate on the rule to allow the bill to be brought to the floor. The gentlelady from New York has done a very good job of crystallizing the issue. If you dont believe we ought to set priorities. if you believe NPR is as important to this Nation as national defense. then reject the rule and reject the bill because the gentlelady is correct. If theyre of equal weight. this is unfair because we are talking about NPR. Were not talking about somehow gutting national defense. But if you believe that somehow national defense has a slightly higher priority in the Constitution and in our constitutional governmental structure than does NPR. then you would reject the gentleladys suggestion and say we came here to try and change things. We came here to try and somehow balance our books at some point in time in the future. but the way to do that is to establish priorities. If we. in fact. believe that saving NPR or giving NPR Federal funding is the same as funding our troops. then all is lost. all is lost. but I frankly was surprised to hear the comparison of us debating on money to keep our troops in the war zone versus NPR. That is the best example I have seen on the floor. perhaps the most honest example Ive seen on floor. of the difference of the two parties and the difference in. I think. what the American people want us to do and what some in the leadership on the Democratic side want us to do.