Eric Cantor

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. And first of all, there is obviously a delay in this bill. We were expecting to see the bill and the war supplemental for our troops to come through tomorrow, and I would ask the gentleman, number one, does he know the amount of support given to the IMF back when Ronald Reagan made those quotes? That's number one. And is it appropriate in a war-spending bill for the taxpayers of this country to be guaranteeing $108 billion dollars to the IMF when we're only providing our troops $80-some billion? So that's more than we're providing our troops for a global bailout. And that is the first line of questioning, Mr. Speaker. Secondly, does he expect to produce more than the 200 votes that the gentleman's side produced on the first go-round on this supplemental bill? Because if not, then he would need to have some support from this side of the aisle. And Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, the New York Times has pointed out May 27, Hezbollah, the Shiite militant group, has talked with the IMF and the European Union about continued financial support. So is he aware that this money that we are affording the IMF to extend to countries who are in need would include countries where Hezbollah would have some impact on the disbursal of those funds? And I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. I will tell the gentleman, New York Times, May 27, 2009, pointed out Hezbollah, the Shiite militant group involved in Lebanon and its government, had talks with the IMF to discuss the possibility of the extension of credit. And are we not, I would ask the gentleman, affording the IMF the ability to extend credit to groups such as that, in countries such as that, as well as the potential for countries to access the credit, including Iran, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Burma, et cetera? We are very, very concerned. There is a real possibility that some of the world's worst regimes will have access to additional resources that will be provided to the IMF, and is he not concerned about that? And I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. And, Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman that the belief on our side is the purpose of the war funding bills should be to provide our troops with the support they need, not this controversial global bailout money. Mr. Speaker, I would say more than that, what we believe is-- currently from the reports is that the bill would eliminate $5 billion from the defense spending directly for our troops and provide that $5 billion credit towards the guarantee that the United States would have to provide to the IMF. Mr. Speaker, even further, we understand that in this provision in the bill, in essence we would be providing for more money for foreign countries in terms of a global bailout than we would be for our own troops. And the even more troubling part to many of us, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the IMF program allows eligibility for countries like Iran, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Burma and others. And that these countries, Mr. Speaker, are not necessarily in pursuit of policies that help the national security of this country. And given the fact that our President has said we don't have the money, how is it, Mr. Speaker--and I would ask the gentleman--does he think that we ought to be delaying the funding of our troops by including the provisions that we've just spoken of? And I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. Reclaiming my time.

Mr. CANTOR. I reclaim my time to try and clarify my logic, Mr. Speaker. I think the gentleman and I both agree that we have heard the Speaker indicate her position that she is not being told the truth. And if she continues to have the briefings, has something changed? Has something been restored to the process that there is integrity in these briefings? And if so, does that mean that the Speaker of the House has retracted her position that somehow we've been misled by the CIA? I would yield.

Mr. CANTOR. Again, Mr. Speaker, I would respond by saying that the American people deserve some transparency. We deserve to get to the bottom of the very serious allegations that have been made about the CIA and their conduct in front of this body. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I yield back my time.

Mr. CANTOR. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. CANTOR. The statements came from the Speaker that she believes she has been misled, and this Congress has been misled. And she said again today that she is continuing the process of being briefed. What has changed? I would ask the gentleman, what has changed in the Speaker's mind that she continues to receive briefings when she alleges mistruths?

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for his patience and would say, again, that we have still not given the American people the transparency on this issue that they deserve. The Speaker of this House has made allegations in a very serious way about our intelligence community. This House is given the oversight responsibility for our Nation's intelligence structure and operation. We all are here sworn to uphold our duty in that respect and the paramount duty of this body, to ensure this Nation's security. It is our belief that we should get to the bottom of this. We should have some sense of an investigation that can ensue to understand why the Speaker made such allegations. That is our position, Mr. Speaker. And if the gentleman doesn't agree that there needs to be something to shed some light on this on behalf of the people, then I guess we agree to disagree.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would just respond to the gentleman. I am focusing on the Speaker because that's where the statements came from.

Mr. CANTOR. I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman again, hasn't the Speaker of this House--not just any Member, but the Speaker of the House, second in line to the President, the constitutional officer presiding in this House--hasn't she indicated her belief and her position that there has been a pattern of misleading information given to this body by the CIA? And if that is the case, I would ask the gentleman, what value is it for the Speaker then to engage in these briefings if she cannot trust the veracity of the information?

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the gentleman and say, what has changed? Because the Speaker has made very serious allegations about the veracity of the briefings that are given by the CIA, and if we are to believe that she is correct, shouldn't we be either having an investigation of those allegations, or is it that she has now changed her mind and believes that the briefings are worthwhile because we can count on the veracity of the information given in those briefings? And I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. I reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker. Again, the gentleman and I can have a discussion here without such allegations being made on the floor. The position that we have taken is in response to direct statements made by the Speaker. There is no partisan accusation here. This is in response to direct statements made by the Speaker. We have a situation that we need some type of independent third party to intervene here. If there is ever an analogous situation in a court of law when one party accuses another of not being truthful, there must be some way, some independent mechanism to determine whether and what was the truth. This is my question again, and the gentleman may continue to be confounded. My question again is, what has changed? If the Speaker doubts the veracity of the information she receives from the CIA but continues to receive that information, how is it that that process doesn't harm the national security of this country? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the gentleman. If the Speaker has alleged that there is untruthfulness, if there is a lack of candor on the part of those giving the briefings, isn't it somehow compromising in those briefings the national security of our country? And I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I just say to Mr. Speaker, he points out the difficulty that the U.S. taxpayers will have in holding accountable this Congress and the IMF for the direction of that spending. And given the unprecedented economic situation this country and its taxpayers are facing, it is a belief on our side of the aisle that we ought not be extending the ability to the IMF to extend $108 billion when the primary purpose of this particular piece of legislation is to provide support for our troops. And let's get on with it, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would also say to the gentleman that today, the Speaker of the House acknowledged that she is continuing to receive national intelligence briefings from the CIA. Now, Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, the Speaker has made serious allegations about the CIA's truthfulness to Congress in the briefings. As the gentleman also knows, the Speaker of the House is one of only four Members of this body who receives the highest level of briefings from the CIA in accordance with the practices of this body in our oversight capacities. These briefings, Mr. Speaker, are an essential part of the House's oversight responsibility of the Nation's intelligence, and in fact, our national security. So I ask the gentleman that, in accordance with the custom of this House, shouldn't the House temporarily designate a replacement for the Speaker in these briefings to maintain the integrity of our oversight? And I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. Reclaiming.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor one of my constituents, Supervisory Special Agent Richard J. McCue. After 25 years of distinguished and honorable service, he retires this month from the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS). In addition to his service with the NCIS, Mr. McCue has also served his country as an officer in the United States Marine Corps. Since September 11th, Mr. McCue has volunteered for several dangerous overseas assignments, including being part of the first NCIS team in the nation to provide Protective Services support to Coalition Provisional Authority leadership in southern Iraq. During this tour, Mr. McCue conducted over one hundred missions in active combat zones, directly encountering both active fire and several Improvised Explosive Devices. Among numerous honors and achievements, Mr. McCue was requested by name to formalize the Surveillance Detection Mission for U.S. Forces within Kuwait, as well as forces transitioning to the Theater of Operations in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. In addition, Mr. McCue volunteered to serve as a forensic expert on the investigative/ recovery team at the Pentagon after the September 11th attacks, providing both his expertise and compassionate care for the victims of that attack. In honor of this selfless service, Mr. McCue received the Department of the Navy Meritorious Civilian Service Medal as well as the Expeditionary Service Medal. Please join me in recognizing Richard McCue for his distinguished service to the people of the United States. We wish him well on his retirement.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with deep and growing concern over President Obama's nomination of Dawn Johnsen to head up the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. My worry isn't merely her position on the question of life. It's that she routinely has taken hard-line stances and made extreme statements that cast doubt on her fitness to manage the power entrusted to her in a responsible way. Ms. Johnsen has claimed that abortion restrictions ``reduce pregnant women to no more than fetal container.'' Her arguments have compared pro-life advocates to the KKK and pregnancy to slavery. The Office of Legal Counsel does not need an activist. It needs someone with a temperament to accurately inform the administration on the legality of policies being contemplated. I encourage Members of the Senate, including my Senator from Virginia, Senator Webb, to vote against this nomination.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, I would say to the majority leader that there is a concern on this side of the aisle to make sure that any investigation, if there is a creation of a truth commission, as the Speaker has indicated she would like to see, that there be a process by which a clear discussion, if you will, revelation as to whether Members of Congress, which Members of Congress and maybe the Speaker herself was briefed on the process, on the interrogation tactic of waterboarding and would ask the gentleman, is it his intention that if such a commission were to be formed that type of open process would be followed? I yield to the gentleman.

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. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, as he knows, the House will break for Memorial Day recess at the end of next week, and since we will not have another colloquy before that recess, I wonder if the majority leader could outline what he expects the House to consider during the 4 weeks that we are in session in June. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman. And as he has indicated, the cap-and-trade bill and health care reform are items that he indicated may or may not be considered in June, but perhaps during the 2-month period of June and July. But, Madam Speaker, the gentleman did not mention the Panama Trade Agreement or Card Check, and I was wondering if the gentleman, the majority leader, could tell us his expectations as to whether the House will be considering those measures over the next 4 weeks after the Memorial Day recess. I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if he could tell us which days he expects the House to consider the bills that he has just announced, and I would yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. I remain concerned. And I think it is shared by my colleagues on this side of the aisle that if it is the intent of the Speaker and the majority leader to pursue a truth commission surrounding the investigation of terrorists and the interrogation tactics employed, that we do know what interaction this body had, the Members of this body and its committees had, in the oversight of the tactics that were employed. Because if we are all concerned about following the law, which we should be first and foremost here, and if there was acquiescence, if there was knowledge on the part of this body, but yet now allegations made suggesting that certain tactics were used and were against the law, that raises serious questions about the ability for this body going forward to properly exercise its oversight authority so we do uphold the law. That would be our concern over here, Madam Speaker, that we make sure that there is a full vetting of what transpired so that we don't repeat the type of mistakes perhaps or we don't repeat the omission of action, if you will, on the part of this body. With that, Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the balance of my time.