macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. what the Democratic leader asked was how could we tell the children that we chose to reduce the deficit by cutting their ability to afford college rather than cutting subsidies for the oil and gas industry? Those are the kind of choices were making. This is not a question about whether to reduce the deficit. This is a question about how we do it and what priorities we have. And we think its absolutely the wrong priority to put in the Constitution of the United States a preference to cutting education. to cutting Medicare as compared to cutting subsidies for special interest corporations. special interest tax breaks for the purposes of reducing the deficit. With that. I yield 11/4 minutes to the gentleman from New York .
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I think we would all agree if we saw a wasteful spending program. we should cut it for the purpose of reducing the deficit. And the question is: If there is a wasteful or unnecessary special interest tax loophole. why shouldnt we cut it for the purpose of reducing the deficit? Why should we write into the Constitution of the United States a provision that says you need twothirds to cut a wasteful tax loophole rather than say lets cut it to reduce the deficit for the benefit of our children? I would also observe. Mr. Speaker. that the Republican plan. with respect to Medicare. would force seniors out of the current Medicare system into the private insurance market where the private insurance industry would ration their care. They would get a lot less support from the Medicare program and yet face much higher costs. That is a deal that Members of Congress dont give to themselves. and I dont think we should ask seniors to take a deal that Members of Congress themselves do not take. With that. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. this certainly is the only plan on the table that would insert a provision into the Constitution of the United States that makes it easier to cut Medicare and easier to cut Social Security than it is to cut subsidies to oil and gas companies or other special interests for the purpose of reducing the deficit. We think thats a bad idea. Thats why its not part of the Presidents balanced plan to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 to 12 years. With that. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey .
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Again. I would remind my colleagues to do the basic math. Go back to the last time the budget of the United States was in surplus. it was during the Clinton administration. It followed on some very difficult decisions in the early 1990s. And what it included. as part of a balanced approach. was asking the folks at the very top to pay a little higher rate than they are today. And what the President has proposed is to ask those Americans. as part of a shared responsibility. to go back to paying those rates. And what our colleagues would plant in the Constitution of the United States is a supermajority requirement. twothirds vote. to go back to the same tax rates that were in place during the Clinton administration. but a majority vote if you want to reduce the deficit by cutting benefits for Medicare beneficiarieswhose average income. by the way. median income is under $22.000 a year. Mr. Speaker. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I find it very curious that on the one hand our Republican colleagues are saying that the revenues that the President has requested as part of a balanced plan are peanuts. that theyre irrelevant. and on the other hand arguing that somehow if you raise those revenues its going to crush the economy. Theyre trying to have it both ways. The fact of the matter is they are a balanced part of an overall approach that talks about reducing our deficit in a balanced way. And I go back to the fact that the last time we had that balanced approach was the last time that we had Federal budget surpluses. With that. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from New York .
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. as the gentleman well knows. the President has put on the table a balanced approach. $4 trillion in 10 to 12 years. $3 in spending cuts to $1 in revenue. In fact. the Speaker of the House and the President of the United States. as my colleagues well know. were talking about a number of components of that plan. What was very clear is our colleagues didnt want to touch it because of this principle they have that not $1 from closing a tax loophole or revenue can go for the purpose of reducing the deficit. We heard a little rewrite of history. Lets just remember that when the President of the United States was sworn in. he immediately faced a record $1.3 trillion deficit. The guy took office. and it was $1.3 trillion that he inherited. And 700.000 jobs were going down the tubes every month. It took a little while to turn things around. and things are still very. very fragile. What would be a huge mistake is to go back to the same trickledown on steroids policy that got us into this mess to begin with. because we know how the movie ended at the end of the Bush administration. They left this administration with a pile of debt. an economy that was falling through the floor. We need to work together to fix this problem. But taking the position that youre going to prevent the United States from paying its bills unless you implant in the Constitution a provision that says it is easier to cut Social Security and Medicare than cut corporate tax loopholes to reduce the deficit is not going to fly with the American people. With that. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts . the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee.
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. it does not encourage certainty or confidence in the markets or anywhere else for one party to say that if they dont get the budget their way. theyre going to prevent the United States from paying its bills. That sends a terrible message. American families dont have the luxury of saying that theyre not going to pay their bills. With that. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan .
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just quote from a letter: "Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and on the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can illafford to allow such a result. The risks. the costs. the disruptions. and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion. that we must pass legislation to raise the debt ceiling." President Ronald Reagan. Now. theres legislation floating around here that creates this delusion. into thinking that somehow we can get to that date and its all made up. that Secretary Geithner cooked the books. and theres legislation that says. you know what. lets pay the Government of China and other creditors before we pay our troops. before we pay our Social Security beneficiaries. What Moodys. what Standard & Poors. what the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others are telling us is. you cant decide to pay your mortgage but not your car payment. If the United States is not fulfilling its obligations to pay for what it has already bought. as Ronald Reagan said. that would have catastrophic consequences. That is why its so dangerous to take the position that somehow unless in the next couple of weeks we pass a constitutional amendment that would make it easier to cut Medicare and Social Security than cut subsidies for the purpose of reducing the deficit. if we dont do that. were not going to allow the United States to pay its bills. and the economy. as President Reagan said. would go straight downhill. With that. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia .
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. again. the Presidents proposal. which mirrors the framework of the bipartisan SimpsonBowles Commission. says well do $3 in cuts with $1 in revenue. Its shared responsibility to reducing our deficit so that our economy in the future can grow. Lets make sure that we dont do anything now that will hurt the fragile economy. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan .
Date: 2011-07-19
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I just heard celebration just a few minutes ago regarding the passage of the Cut. Cap. and Balance that really should be named the Tap Dance. Establishing the Losers Club for Americans. and the Busting of Benefits for Americans bill. because what we are doing is tap dancing around the responsibility of this Congress to in fact raise the debt limit as we have done 60 times. And. of course. we are establishing losers by the very fact that interest rates will go up. Social Security and other benefits. Medicare will be gone. U.S. credit will be downgraded and the Chamber of Commerce and hundreds of businesses will in fact be begging for us to lift the debt ceiling. But. more importantly. we will cause Americas lack of paying her bills to hurt families and businesses. And let me introduce you to the losers. Now that this bill has passed. welcome to the losers: soldiers and their families. their grandparents and mothers and fathers who are back here in this country while they are on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today we just voted H.R. 2650 to in fact establish a club of losers for these patriots who have served their country. What a shame. What a shame.
Date: 2011-07-20
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. we need bipartisan efforts that focus on fiscal responsibility while maintaining important investments in our communities that will create jobs and grow the economy. Even now. I am trying to be confident that the best interests of the American people will prevail. but it is terribly disappointing that ending Medicare for seniors is so important to Republicans that they continue to pursue this agenda at all costs and willingly put our national economy in peril. Mr. Speaker. the House of Representatives has been under the control of the Republicans for nearly 200 days. and they have yet to bring a single jobcreating bill to the floor. This is an issue that should always be above partisan politics. It seems that they would rather see the United States default on its existing debt for the first time in history. watch our economy lose hundreds of thousands of jobs. and cause interest rates and consumer goods to skyrocket in the process. We must do something about it.
Date: 2011-07-20
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. yesterday our Republican friends jumped for joy when they passed a draconian bill that would cut $6 trillion and jeopardize a lifeline for millions of Americans. and that is Social Security. We have all been referring to a President that endeared himself to this whole country. President Reagan. His letter to Senator Baker said: The Nation can illafford to allow such a result. The risk. the costs. the disruptions. and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion: The Senate must vote to raise the debt ceilingin 1983 when the country was much smaller. But what do we face here? Frivolous activity like Republican freshmen who. in their manner of affect. showing disrespect for the Office of the President. One Member said: "I have a challenge for the President. I dare him. I double dare him to even think about cutting Social Security." What about the Member? Should he be dared to not cut Social Security? The Republican vote yesterday already cut Social Security. And youve just cut Social Security as Republican freshmen. Why dont we engage in negotiation and let the approach be negotiation and resolutionnot obstruction. Why dont we engage in negotiation and work together as a Nation. as the American people want? I would like a little more respect from my colleagues for the President of the United States. President Barack Obama.
Date: 2011-07-20
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. last night we voted once again in the House of Representatives to cut Medicare. to cut Social Security. and to reward the wealthiest 2 percent of our Nation with tax cuts. and of course big business with tax cuts. The Republican majority wasted a crucial day of debate instead of protecting and working on the financial security for our Nation. We could have debated a strong jobs agenda like the Make It in America agenda that the Democrats have. We could have discussed how we could strengthen partnerships with businesses to retain Americas workers for the jobs that are actually needed here. But what did they do? As one former Republican budget adviser calls it. they debated something that was "a misleading political cheap shot." The Republicans Cut. Cap. and Balance Act is harmful for this country. and it is not a serious proposal. It is not going to be signed into law. They wasted our time. So I am glad that that bill is dead on arrival in the Senate. But I really wish. I really wish they would get down to working for America.
Date: 2011-07-20
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I thank the gentleman. And I want to associate myself with his very detailed and wellstated opening statement on this legislation. I think the premise should be that all of us agree on the importance of the FAA. I have served as the chairwoman of the Transportation Security Subcommittee of the Homeland Security Committee and now serve as its ranking member. Through that timeframe. I have seen the overlapping need to view particularly FAAs work and particularly air traffic controller work as part of both the safety and security of this Nation. I remind my colleagues of the activist role that air traffic controllers in particular took during 9/11. During the massiveness of confusion and the loss of the destination or the placing of three of our major airlines and planes that were flying in. airplanes. the air traffic controller was really a team that was on the first response. if you will. So their work is enormously important. And my colleague mentioned some numbers that I think are extremely important: $1.3 trillion is what we find as the revenue in the airline industry. 111/2 million jobs. a 75 percent increase in employees within 20 years and 1 billion in the next decade. I want to say that this means that we have a great obligation to protect the American traveling public. I also want to associate myself with the idea of not protecting our small airports and disadvantaging those airports by this legislation. And again I assume Chairman ROCKEFELLERS comments play to that as well. But I had offered an amendment that was sent to the Senate to establish a mandate that at the top 20 United States airports there should be no fewer than three air traffic controllers on duty during periods of airfield operations. I firmly believe this provision will ensure that air traffic control towers at highvolume airports in this country will be appropriately staffed at all times. Mr. Speaker. we engaged with the conference committee very diligently. We have all heard the recent stories of air traffic controllers falling asleep or being locked out of the control tower or. for whatever reason. not being able to be on the job. on duty at critical times. Now. I know that air traffic controllers reflect the diversity of America and the various ills and concerns. We also know they have long concentrated hours and its a difficult job. Just recently there was a question of whether or not an air traffic controller was inebriated on the job. whether he drank on the job or he came to the job. he or she. with this condition. But if that was the case and there was one air traffic controller there. theres zero. If that was the case and there were two. then there was one.
Date: 2011-07-20
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Let me thank the leadership on the committee and then simply appeal to my chairman. Mr. MICA. to come and reason together. because this has been a committee that has had a history of reasoning together. Without my standing here and going through it. you are very aware of what the most objectionable part of this extension is. If we are serious about passing an extension. lets pass the extension and deal with the other issues at another time. Yes. it has been since 2007. and it has been because of the battling back and forth. Youre either prolabor or antilabor. but we are ruining the lives of workers. We are subjecting safety to the whims. and we are messing up projects and wasting money by allowing this bickering to continue. I would simply appeal to our chairman to please come to the table. and lets pass a clean extension bill.
Date: 2011-07-21
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Madam Speaker. it is with great honor that I rise today to pay tribute to a friend and a remarkable public servant. Felix Anton Schwarz. Mr. Schwarz was the executive director of the Health Care Council of Orange County. where he had such a passion for working with people until his 80th year. Unfortunately. he passed away on the 4th of July. Mr. Schwarz will be remembered for his long and productive life in which he brought people together to seek solutions to so many of our health care issues back home. He was an avid advocate for improved access and affordable care for the people of Orange County. Through the Health Care Council. Mr. Schwarz was able to educate the public. educate health care professionals. and in particular policymakers in the need to support the countys safety net of health care services. He was a strong voice for the most vulnerable and neglected populations within our area. Mr. Schwarzs energy and vision touched thousands of individuals. Today I rise to honor his memory and the legacy that he has left for our community.
Date: 2011-07-21
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chair. I dont think its lost on anyone in this House that today is both the first anniversary of the DoddFrank Wall Street Reform law. as well as the first day the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) created by that law officially begins its work on behalf of American families. And so it is disappointingalthough not very surprisingthat the majority would choose to bring a bill to the floor designed to undermine and delay this vitally important independent watchdog for American consumers. Specifically. H.R. 1315 would invite gridlock at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by replacing its current Director with a less accountable fivemember commission. It would make it easier for other regulators to interfere with and overturn the Bureaus proposed consumer protections. And it would delay the CFPBs core functions until the Senate confirms the Chairman of the legislations proposed Board of Directorssomething the Senate Republican leadership has publicly and repeatedly announced it is unwilling to do. Mr. Chair. although not the only cause. it is at this point beyond dispute that insufficiently regulated predatory lending practices targeting consumers with abusive financial products like subprime mortgages helped create the housing bubble that precipitated the financial crisis. Had the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau been in existence during the early 2000s. we could have protected individual homebuyers from these marketplace abusesand ultimately protected the Nation from the financial meltdown that ensued. Mr. Chair. we have an obligation to learn from history. Rather than take the referee off the field. we should insist on a referee that enforces clear and understandable rules of the road so that American consumers can make informed decisions about the financial products that are right for themselves and their families. I urge a no vote.
Date: 2011-07-21
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Page 1. strike lines 5 through 12 (and redesignate succeeding sections accordingly). The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 358. the gentlewoman from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Date: 2011-07-21
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Let me just say as I yield to the gentleman. the ranking member and chairman at the time of passage of this bill. I was given a litany of ills that can attack consumers. Im glad we have this board. and Im glad that we are looking to restore the twothirds oversight to protect these individuals and the nurse and the child. I ask support for the amendment. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Date: 2011-07-21
Speaker: AL GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment. The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Date: 2011-07-21
Speaker: AL GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. this amendment is indicative of why we are in opposition to much of what is being said today. This amendment assumes that there is some sort of onerous regulation or some sort of invidious discrimination that has taken place within the CFPB when. in fact. the CFPB has not issued one regulation. not one. And because it has not issued one regulation. one can only assume that much of what is happening today is onerous speculation and invidious prognostication because there seems to be this notion that this agency is going to be harmful. but it hasnt done one thing. There is this concept of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. but there is no bathwater. There is no bathwater to throw out because the baby hasnt done anything. The CFPB has done absolutely nothing. and we are now trying to overregulate it before it has an opportunity to pass a single regulation. It was not the CFPB that created the crisis. It did not create 3/27s and 2/28s. It did not create prepayment penalties that coincide with teaser rates. It did not create negative amortization. It did not create the dastardly yield spread premium which allowed people to qualify for prime mortgages and be forced into subprime mortgages. The CFPB has done nothing. It is an effort on our part to make sure that many of the onerous actions that took place. that caused us to be in the position that were in. that these actions cannot happen again. I stand in opposition to this amendment. I also stand in opposition to the bill because the bill would weaken the CFPB to the extent that it cant do what it is intended to do. and that is protect consumers. Somebody. some agency ought to stand there for consumers. This agency is that agency. Its the watchdog. We do not need a watchdog without any bite. Lets keep the bite in the CFPB. Lets make sure that it can protect consumers and make sure that we dont get the products back on the market that we had before. This amendment would allow persons who are on the board. who do not have a vote to petition. in a sense. they would become empowered by this ability to petition. even if it doesnt impact the industry that they happen to represent. I stand in opposition to it. I think the CFPB. as presented. is the best way for us to proceed. The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota .