Eric Cantor

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, if there is one thing everyone in this Chamber should be able to agree on, it is that we need to focus on job creation and relieve the burden on middle-class families, not increase it. Yet the evidence suggests that by taking up this cap-and-trade bill, we are abandoning this fundamental mission. According to an MIT study, the legislation before us will force America's middle-class families to pay as much as $3,100 in higher prices every year. The EPA, meanwhile, estimates that a family of four will eventually pay an additional average of $1,100 each year. The impact on jobs is equally dismal. A CRA International study finds the legislation, when fully implemented, will cost America 2.3 to 2.7 million jobs. This, at a time when hundreds of thousands of workers are losing their jobs every month. In the midst of a severe recession, why would we even contemplate a plan that amounts to a growth-killing millstone around the neck of small businesses and all American consumers. Madam Speaker, it is not the utilities, the oil companies, and the other producers who will bear the cost of this new regime. We already know that the companies will pass their higher costs along to the consumers and small businesses that rely on their services. This means more expensive bills for all Americans on everything from electricity to heating to gasoline to groceries. We also can't forget that this national energy tax comes down hardest on the poor. The highest income quintile spends less than 5 percent of its income on energy-intensive products, but our families in the lowest income quintile spend over 20 percent on those items--this, according to CBO. Madam Speaker, with a watchful eye toward the consequences for jobs and economic growth, let us give thoughtful consideration to the limited benefits this unilateral action will bring about. Even if the bill cuts U.S. carbon emissions to 83 percent of current levels by 2050, we still are only anticipated to slow global temperature increases by a mere two-tenths of a degree. And then there's the real elephant in the room, India and China. Both of these freewheeling nations are growing rapidly and not prepared to slow down. Do we really want to hamstring U.S. industry and put it at a competitive disadvantage to Asia? Can we be so naive to assume our businesses, jobs--and emissions--won't emigrate to China and India? Moving to eliminate CO2 from the atmosphere is a noble endeavor, but taking this kind of action without enforceable carbon commitments from our competitors is only an exercise in futility. Madam Speaker, Republicans remain committed to bringing a swift end to the recession and paving the path to prosperity. We intend to focus on policies that will put people back to work and grow the economy. That does not include this cap-and-trade proposal. With stakes so high, gambling the house away on such a high-cost, low-reward program is a grave mistake that Republicans will not support.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Florida. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering the rule for a bill to develop and deploy defensive capabilities for the protection of the American people, our stationed men and women, and our allies. The rising threat from North Korea and Iran highlights why our national security strategy must include a comprehensive, multilayered, and robust missile defense program to protect our homeland. Both of these rogue nations, Mr. Speaker, provocatively flaunt their growing capabilities with long-range missiles and nuclear programs. Just last week, we learned that North Korea is planning to launch a missile towards the U.S. around the 4th of July holiday. To repeat a phrase used by our President just last week, these regimes pose a ``grave threat'' to the safety and security of our citizens and our allies. Yet the bill which is the subject of this rule, Mr. Speaker, sustains an inexplicable $1.2 billion cut from the missile defense budget. Mr. Speaker, the question before us is very simple: How do we reconcile gutting missile defense when it will defend against what our own President rightfully calls a ``grave threat''? It simply doesn't make sense. The cuts include a 35 percent reduction to the Ground-based Midcourse Defense program, a system located in Alaska and California for the purpose of protecting this country against the type of missile North Korea is gearing up to launch. This is not the time to be reducing our commitment to missile defense. We must fund the current missile defense systems that protect us today and the forward-looking programs that will protect us tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, we must restore the $1.2 billion cut from the missile defense programs today.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentlelady. Mr. Speaker, the Iranian regime's brutalities are on full display for the whole world to behold. I rise today in sympathy with the victims of Iranian political oppression who have been injured or killed, protesting the outcome of their election. I salute the leadership of the gentlelady from Florida and the gentleman from California for bringing this resolution forward, as well as the gentleman from Indiana for his leadership on this and so many issues, and the way that the gentlelady from Nevada spoke. It is America's moral responsibility to speak out on behalf of the protection of human rights wherever they are violated. And regardless of the outcome of the Iranian election, make no mistake where the power in Iran lies. It lies with a clerical regime who conducts its most egregious activities in the dark, hidden from the world's eyes and, thus, escaping media attention. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps quietly funnels weapons and funding into terrorist groups from Iraq to Afghanistan, from Lebanon to Gaza. Iranian centrifuges enrich uranium at nuclear plants often hidden from weapons inspectors. And terrorist groups make voyages to Iran to receive training at unspecified locations. This is the regime we are talking about, and this week the true colors of that regime are on broad display. We must rally the world around the cause of the Iranian people. I urge the administration, I urge President Obama to follow the lead of this House, to speak out on behalf of the Iranian people and their quest for freedom and human rights.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I rise today in sympathy with the victims of Iranian political oppression who have been injured or killed protesting the outcome of their election. Yet regardless of whether Ahmadinejad or Mousavi wins, we must not maintain any illusions about where true power in Iran rests. That would be in the hands of the Islamic Republic's clerical regime, extremists determined to advance Iran's nuclear program and use terrorism to bully other states in the region. Much of the regime's most egregious activities are done in the dark, hidden from the world's eyes and thus escaping media attention. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps quietly funnels weapons and funding into terrorists groups from Iraq to Afghanistan to Lebanon to Gaza. Iranian centrifuges enrich uranium at nuclear plants often hidden from weapons inspectors. And terrorist groups make voyages to Iran to receive training at unspecified locations. But this week the true colors of the Iranian regime are on broad display. With the whole world watching, the Iranian regime has been embarrassed--called to account seemingly for the first time. This is an opportunity we cannot squander. Let us rally the world around the Iranian people. Let us use this opening to show the international community how dangerous the Iranian regime is--and why a nuclear Iran is flatly unacceptable. Regrettably, the President and Democratic leadership in congress are failing to respond to the growing threat a nuclear Iran poses to the world. Today we call on President Obama to immediately condemn the violence the Iranian regime is perpetrating against its citizens. We call on the Speaker to immediately bring to the floor and consider the Iran Petroleum Sanctions Act. The bipartisan bill, sponsored by Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen, would impose sanctions on the radical Iranian regime while they continue to seek nuclear weapons and destabilize the Middle East.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for the rest of the evening.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, I would respond, first of all, to the suggestion that the discussions that we've had, and others, over the last 2 months as to whether an agreement was possible, frankly, is unprecedented. Because in years past in the appropriations process, time agreements were arrived at once the number of amendments were known, and we worked out the agreements and debate ensued thereunder. We did not know prior to the deadline and the cutoff of preprinting requirements as to how many amendments there would be. So we do know now how many amendments there would be. But again, Madam Speaker, I say what sticks with us, and not very well, is your decision to cut debate off on page 2, line 7 of the bill after the first Republican amendment. Madam Speaker, again, with all due respect, that does not speak in good faith about the majority's intention to allow us the opportunity to speak to the issues surrounding the expenditure of taxpayer dollars. That is not good faith. We stand here in good faith, as the gentleman and I have discussed prior, and we want the opportunity to show you that we can conduct debate in good faith, deliberate on the people's business, and not be shut out summarily. And it is very hard, again, Madam Speaker, for us to accept that the majority had any intention of allowing debate if we shut it off after 30 minutes and the first Republican amendment. So I say to the gentleman, we stand here and we ask you to allow us to proceed this evening, allow us to demonstrate good faith so that then the majority can then match that good faith and we can proceed in this House in normal course in the appropriations process. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, I would, first of all, respond to speak to the issue of the 127 amendments having been filed. I think that it's certainly a result of and, perhaps, due to the unintended consequences of imposing a preprinting requirement. As the gentleman and I have discussed, many of our Members felt it necessary to prefile their amendments to preserve their right to proffer an amendment without necessarily having the intention of following through with offering that amendment. There are several amendments that are duplicative. There are many amendments that our Members have already said that they would not offer. So I would say to the gentleman that it is hard for us on this side of the aisle to stand here and to accept the notion that somehow, 30 minutes into the debate and on page 2 of line 7 of the bill and while in discussion of the first Republican amendment, that was where you drew the line and decided that the tactics by us were going to be dilatory. It certainly seems to me, I would say to the gentleman, with all due respect, that there was some preconceived notion that this was the direction in which the majority was going to head regardless. Furthermore, Madam Speaker, I will say to the gentleman--and the gentleman and I have spoken about this--it is our intention to practice some good faith and to ask the majority to engage with us, to allow our Members to come to the floor, to deliberate in the context of the only constitutional duty of this body, which is the expenditure of taxpayer dollars, and to allow our voice to be heard. I hardly think, Madam Speaker, that the decision to close this process after 30 minutes, to close this process after just the first Republican amendment, is at all being made in good faith. So I ask the gentleman again: What is the thinking of the majority here? The first appropriations bill. The first Republican amendment. How is it that we can expect a good-faith debate? Our Members complied with your rule-- unprecedented. The gentleman speaks to prior years and to the number of amendments that came up on this bill and on others. He knows as well as I that the preprinting requirement was not in place. This is the unintended consequence of a preprinting requirement, the 127 amendments. We have had that discussion. There will not be discussion and debate and votes asked for 127 amendments. So we stand here in good faith and want to engage with the Members on your side of the aisle. So I ask the gentleman: What is it? What is the intention tonight--to go back to Rules? Our Members have already been told their amendments will be accepted. Now how should they proceed? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. America has the best military in the world. I think all of us who have traveled and who have seen the commitment of our Armed Forces are overwhelmed by their patriotism. The success of our military has much to do with the character and the courage of the men and women in uniform who fight every single day for our freedom. And what we can do, as Members of this Congress, to speak to that courage and that commitment on the part of those men and women is to stand up and to remove politics from bills affecting their ability to execute on their mission to protect us. Mr. Speaker, we can pass a bipartisan bill. This House has shown several weeks ago, we passed a bill with a 368-60 vote, clearly, a bipartisan bill sending the message that this Congress stood for our troops and nothing got in the way. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we now find a conference report that will make its way to this House that is vastly different from the bill approved in a bipartisan way. Number one, Mr. Speaker, the provisions in the conference report that will make its way to this floor seem to put the rights of terrorists before the security of Americans. When we see that this body somehow wants to remove language prohibiting the transfer of detainees at Guantanamo Bay to U.S. soil, when this House allows for that transfer, what that says is we are willing to take on untold risk at the expense of the security of the people that our troops are trying to protect. Next, Mr. Speaker, we have seen the conferees take out language that would prohibit the release of photographs that we know will endanger the lives of our troops. Our commander on the ground in Iraq, General Odierno, was very clear in his admonition several weeks ago when he said our troops will be put in greater harm's way, and specific units will have enhanced danger immediately, if these photographs are allowed to be released. And I know that the majority says that we've got protections, that the White House will stand up and not allow for their release. But at the end of the day, we have the ability to stop it and to act now.

Mr. CANTOR. And I ask that this House stand up, act now, and make sure that these photos don't make their ways to brochures for recruitment of al Qaeda or make their way on to Internet sites to help attract more terrorists in the fight against our troops. And lastly, Mr. Speaker, to burden our troops with $108 billion of a loan guarantee to a global bailout is not putting our troops first. That's putting politics before our troops, and that's unacceptable to the American people.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I would say to the gentleman that he has noticed two appropriations bills for next week: Commerce, Justice and Science; and the Homeland Security appropriations bills. Madam Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, does he expect the House, as is its custom, to consider these bills under an open rule? And I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. Reclaiming my time, I would just say to the gentleman, as he does know, there were applicable provisions at law which govern the treatment of soldiers at war and there is a much less definitive, more nebulous environment in which we are to look towards enemy combatants, which is my point. Because with the trial of enemy combatants on U.S. soil, we are confronting, as the gentleman knows, cases of first impression at every turn, and we are confronting uncertainty as to the disposition of these cases which brings up potential harm for U.S. citizens. I would just go back to the gentleman's plea that he would like to see us support this bill. If the primary purpose is to maintain, promote the security and safety of our troops and provide them with funding, it is a reach for me to understand how allowing for a release of photos, how allowing for the transfer of enemy combatants-- terrorists--to U.S. soil furthers that end. So I would say in closing, Madam Speaker, if the gentleman is satisfied with deferring to the White House and deferring to this President on the very core purpose of securing this country at all levels and doesn't feel the Congress should take affirmative action, then I believe his support of this bill is well put. But it is certainly the opinion of many of us in this House as indicated by votes as late as yesterday that we can do better, that we can take action to secure our troops, get them the money they need and get rid of the unrelated items in this bill.

Mr. CANTOR. I will yield.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman and his plea for support in his bill, knowing good and well that this bill did not go out of this House without some support from Republicans that were necessary for its passage in its original form. I would just say to the gentleman and thank him for his description of the POW camp in Texas. But here we are dealing with individuals who are not necessarily soldiers of war, they're enemy combatants, an entirely different set of circumstances that we have today.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman, Madam Speaker. I would simply point to the vote taken yesterday in the House on the motion to instruct conferees, 267 Members of this House support the inclusion of the language barring release of the photos. So I am at a loss to understand the thinking behind this action when we bring this report to the floor that strips that language. Not only the majority, by far the Members of this House on both sides of the aisle said that they think that language is important. The American people do. It is counterintuitive to think at all that Congress should not take action to secure the safety of our troops and stop the release of those photos. Lastly, Madam Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman, we have been somewhat dismayed again about the clouding of the issues and the underlying principle of this bill, which is to fund our troops and provide for their safety, and we've seen this process delayed over unrelated items. It is unfortunate. And I'm hopeful that our troops are not getting the wrong message, that somehow their safety, security and the funding of their efforts doesn't come first. I would just lastly like to ask the gentleman: How is it that when we left the House and we had the broad bipartisan support of the provisions which fenced off the money so that we would not endanger the citizens and the communities of the targeted facilities that the detainees from Guantanamo would come to that we took that fencing off of the money to preclude the funding of shipping terrorists here, to now say that we're going to be safer, it is a better policy for us to try and achieve the rights and protect the rights of the terrorists at the potential expense of endangering U.S. citizens? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, I think, as the gentleman knows, we are probably going to have to leave this topic and agree to disagree. It is very concerning, given the new times we are in, and, frankly, the facts and information have come forward about the special drawing rights about the fact and knowledge that we have at this point knowing U.S. taxpayer dollars will help facilitate countries like Iran, Venezuela, Burma, and others to access more money to do what it is that they think is in their interest and certainly not in the interest of the U.S. But I would like to turn the gentleman's attention back to his statement about the intention of this bill and the primary purpose of the war funding bill, which, again, to loosely paraphrase, was to provide for troop safety and security, and that's the underlying purpose. The gentleman indicated that the President has already taken the same position that most of us, I believe, in this House have taken so far as these photos are concerned and the release of the photos of the detainees. So I am again at somewhat of a loss to understand why it is that even if the White House and the President himself have sided with what I think the majority of the American people feel as well as the Members of this House, why it is that we are doing the opposite in the text of the report that we will be voting on. And I would say to the gentleman, Commander Ray Odierno, General Odierno, Commander of the Multinational Forces in Iraq, someone that I'm sure the gentleman has had occasion to meet and I as well, who we know is a very respected and serious leader of our troops, he said just a few weeks ago, I strongly believe the release of these photos will endanger the lives of U.S. soldiers, airmen, marines, sailors, and civilians, as well as the lives of our Iraqi partners. Certain operating units are at particular risk of harm from release of the photos. And he went on to describe those particular risks that are specific. The gentleman, I think, can agree with me it is not in the interest of securing the safety of our troops for us to remain silent or for us not to take congressional action ensuring that nothing occurs for us to possibly harm our troops in this bill. That is why I ask the gentleman again, how have we sat here and delayed consideration of the bill because now we had to ensure inclusion in the bill the stripping of the provision which provides the safety of our troops? And I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for his suggestion and counsel, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. And, Madam Speaker, I would respond by going back to the gentleman's original statement concerning the principal purpose of the war funding bill, and that he said, if I could paraphrase, the intent of the bill is to fund our troops. So I am at somewhat of a loss to understand why we have taken 29 days. We've already had one strong bipartisan vote in this House with nearly unanimity on our side of the aisle to provide the necessary funding for our troops, so I'm at somewhat of a loss to understand why the delay. The gentleman speaks of the urgent need for us, as U.S. taxpayers, to fund a global bailout, and the gentleman said that there is indication that somehow if we address the issue of poverty that we will then be lessening the number of terrorists. I don't know, Madam Speaker, if all of us would agree with that or not. No question, reducing poverty is a laudable goal, but we are also in the business here in Washington of setting priorities. Priority one should be the funding of our troops and to secure this country and its citizens. And thank God we have our men and women in uniform there. They should be our priority in executing in terms of advocating for the safety and fighting for the security of this country. So I am still, to use the gentleman's word from last week, confounded as to why it is we cannot have the IMF funding go through regular order in this House. As you know, reports have indicated that actions have been taken by this administration, especially Secretary Geithner, to cast a vote in favor of increasing access to money and credit for the member nations of the IMF. That is done without congressional approval. And we're talking here specifically about the special drawing rights of nations at the IMF. We have also found out that the nation of Iran will have the ability to access funding of over a billion dollars through this process. To me, that calls for congressional oversight and action. It doesn't warrant delaying this bill. It doesn't warrant putting on the backs of our troops the funding of nations, frankly, that are providing support for the destruction of our efforts and endangering our troops on the ground in Iraq and in the region. So I have a question to the gentleman of why it is so important that we go ahead and fund a global bailout when the primary mission is to fund our troops. And I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, I now would like to point out to the gentleman, as all of us know, that our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have spent the last 29 days waiting for this Congress to authorize the funding that they need to execute their mission to maintain not only their own safety, but the safety of us here at home. We have heard reports since last night that the war funding bill and its provision and primary mission of funding the troops has now been somewhat eclipsed by provisions which have no relation to protecting and supporting our troops in the field. So I would ask the gentleman, could he confirm, number one, that $108 billion--scored at $5 billion by the Congressional Budget Office-- whether that money for the IMF will be included in the troop funding bill? Number two, are the reports correct which have indicated that the provisions prohibiting the release of detainee photos has now been stripped from the measure that we will consider? And thirdly, could the gentleman confirm that the conference report coming to the House will now allow for the transfer of the Guantanamo detainees into the United States? And I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I would like to ask a followup of the majority leader, specifically for the benefit of the Members who serve on the Ways and Means and the Agriculture Committees. Will we anticipate that those two committees will have an opportunity to hear and mark up the cap-and-trade bill? And I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that the Speaker of the House has announced a goal of considering the cap-and-trade bill on the floor prior to the July 4 recess. I would ask the majority leader, does he expect the Speaker's goal to be met? And I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman. As the gentleman knows, in 2005 this House did abide by a schedule such as the one that he proposes, and did so under an open rule on each bill. I ask the gentleman if, given this preprinting requirement that we are proceeding under, if there is a need for a perfecting amendment that comes upon the adoption of an amendment, how is it that we will be necessarily guaranteeing Members' perfecting amendments the right to be heard? Will there be a UC granted for such a perfecting amendment? I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this bill. It was my sincere hope that this bill would have come to the floor under a process that would have allowed Members to offer amendments. Had we been permitted to do so, I would have offered an amendment to allow individuals to use the credit for the purchase of a fuel-efficient, previously owned vehicle. Even after a generous credit, for many American families, a new car is financially out of reach. Yet with gas prices rising again, these families deserve the same opportunity to upgrade their current vehicle to a more fuel-efficient model. For these families, the credit that can be used towards the purchase of a fuel- efficient, pre-owned car could make all of the difference. Indeed, there is already a substantial inventory of previously owned, fuel-efficient vehicles on dealer lots available for purchase. As a result, these purchases will promote the goals of the program by increasing the number of fuel-efficient vehicles on the road. It is also important to remember that the livelihood of tens of thousands of Americans depend on the used car market. Used car sales outnumber new car sales 3-1 in the U.S., and there are more than twice as many used car dealers as new car dealers in this country. Treating cars that meet the same fuel-efficiency standards differently, based on whether they are new or previously owned, effectively picks winners and losers among these dealers. Given the difficult economic situation faced by all Americans, I do not believe that it is wise or necessary to reward some Americans while punishing others. If we were to expand this bill to include the purchase of previously owned vehicles, it would truly be a win-win. As it helps the environment by encouraging more fuel-efficient vehicles, it would also help ease our dependence on foreign oil, and it would provide another incentive to help jump-start the economy. Madam Speaker, I'm saddened I was not permitted to offer my amendment, but I'm hopeful as this bill works its way through the process we can work to address the concerns of those who make their living selling previously owned vehicles.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that he just referred to and announced that we would be considering the war funding supplemental conference report next week. I would ask the gentleman: Does he expect the very controversial Senate-passed provision providing for the IMF money to be included in the conference report? I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule.