Eric Cantor

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman, Madam Speaker. I would say again, somehow, in the gentleman's memory of these past years, there is something that has been left out, which is this body and Congress, because, during the Clinton years, the Clinton years that saw prosperity, there was a Republican-controlled Congress. The Republican-controlled Congress yielded tax policies that we believe could once again get us back on track. In the same way, referring to all the job losses that the gentleman continues to recite and point fingers at and blame the prior administration for, if we're going to play that game, I would say since his party has taken control of this body, we've lost in this country 6.1 million jobs. As he says, none of the job losses are acceptable. I would say to the gentleman that there are many ways to look at these figures and who was responsible for what and who could claim credit for such, but at the end of the day, what we are facing right now is a situation where the American people and the small businesses and the working families of this country need to regain some confidence. So I would ask the gentleman directly: If we're about removing uncertainty, is he willing to say to the small business owners out there and to the people of this country, no card check bill this session, no cap-and-trade this session, no death tax this session, and no hiking taxes in the time of unemployment that we are in? Those are the things from which we could send a message to the entrepreneurs and small businesses to lift this veil of uncertainty. I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. I thank him for his indulgence in this lengthy colloquy. If the scheduling piece of this colloquy has now yielded, the fact that there is an uncertainty as to whether we'll see card check or whether we'll see cap-and-trade or whether we're going to see tax hikes, then that's the message, I think, that is going to be delivered to the small businesses that we are going to count on to create jobs. In closing, Madam Speaker, I would note that, from Virginia to New Jersey to Massachusetts, the people of those States, and I believe the people of America, have spoken. What the people want is a Congress that will work in a bipartisan fashion to get the American people back to work. Republicans, on our part, will continue to offer solutions just as we have done for the last year, and we hope that----

Mr. CANTOR. I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for that. I would say, Madam Speaker, in closing, yes, America voted in 2008 for Barack Obama to become President of the United States. It was this November that the people had the opportunity in the two States with the gubernatorial election and then just this week the people of Massachusetts had an opportunity to vote for their Senator based on the policies that have come out of this new administration and the majority in Congress. It is those policies that were voted on this time, and it is those policies that I believe do not reflect the mainstream of America and where the Republicans stand, ready to work with the gentleman and his party in trying to bring the debate and these policy solutions back towards where most Americans feel we ought to be heading in terms of direction for this country. I do thank the gentleman.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. I would simply respond that the Republican no-cost jobs plan is a plan that was fashioned around the principle that we've got to remove the uncertainty gripping the small businesses and job creators in this country. So contrary to the suggestion that the gentleman made about the fact that we just want to get rid of regulation, what the plan actually said, Madam Speaker, was to halt any proposed regulation expected to have an economic cost or result in job loss or have a disparate impact on small business. In the same way, we call for lowering the deficit now without raising taxes because, as we all know, people don't know where Washington's next move is going. And so we say let's just freeze domestic discretionary spending at last year's level. My goodness, every small business owner, every family in this country is having to go through that exercise and, frankly, is having to cut, not just freeze. In the same way, the suggestion that perhaps Republicans wouldn't support transparency and an even playing field and regulations that will control the amount of leverage on Wall Street, that's silly. Of course we support efforts like that. But what we do know is this administration, and, frankly, the majority in Congress, has been very slow at getting the message out to auditors and regulators in the field that they should be reflecting the sentiments that the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve have said, which is, we need to return back to some sense of normalcy in the assessment of risk, because we all know this country has been built on entrepreneurialism, on opportunity. It is not that we have seen our prosperity come from this government. That's where, really, Madam Speaker, the differences lie because we don't believe that the way back to economic revival is through more Keynesian economic policy. The gentleman can go ahead and suggest that the Bush policies failed. Obviously, I disagree. He would probably defend the Carter policies. I would certainly disagree with that and would say that they were an utter failure. He would probably say that the policies of Ronald Reagan were a failure. I would say we disagree on that. At the end of the day, what's really the problem here is this government, under the majority's rule and the President's, has continued to expand. We haven't put an end to the bailout culture. Every time we expect to see the TARP program end, there is another use that has come up for that money, which is an emergency program. Every time we expect to say to business owners and their working families, let's stop sending signals that we're going to impose costs on you. So, if it's a cap-and-trade bill, if it's a card check bill, or if it's a tax increase, why can't we just say, ``stop''? Let the American people regain their sense of economic security and let the ingenuity in the private sector take hold again. I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. I will yield at the end of my statement. My point is that the stimulus bill that passed almost 1 year ago, there is growing consensus here that it was not sufficiently targeted toward job growth. In fact, even the portion of infrastructure spending that the gentleman and his party and this White House decided upon, the design of that spending, the Associated Press has come out with a study indicating it did not grow employment at the local level in the communities which we represent. So if we understand and know that that is not the way to grow jobs, that is, the design of the stimulus bill, why would we vote for Stimulus II? In fact, I would remind the gentleman, as I know he remembers, the bipartisanship around the Stimulus II vote in December was against the bill, as well over 30 Members on his side of the aisle voted against the bill because, again, I believe it is trying to get it right this time. And so instead of the gentleman's continuing to refer to years ago, I would remind him that we have presented to him as well as to the President a Republican no-cost jobs plan. The gentleman has dismissed that document and that plan saying there is nothing for free, that we shouldn't be talking about things that we could do together that don't cost anything. I would say to the gentleman, the President himself has said that within the passage of three trade bills sitting in this body, we could see the creation of 250,000 jobs. We have had discussion on this floor about whether those trade bills are coming forward; 250,000 jobs at no cost. It seems to me we really should go about doing that as well as the other items that we listed in our no-cost jobs plan that the House Republicans have put forward. And I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman, Madam Speaker. First of all, I know that it is tempting for the gentleman to delve into the past, comparing the Bush policies to the Clinton policies, but I know the gentleman realizes we are in the year 2010. We have new challenges before us. And I would say that the piece of information left out by the gentleman is the fact that it was his party that controlled Congress during some of the period in which he cites the job losses. In fact, there have been 3.6 million jobs lost just since January of 2009. I would then say to the gentleman, as far as the stimulus bill that you speak of----

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. I would respond simply by saying most indicators are the voters of that Commonwealth voted for Mr. Brown because of his stances, and one of those stances was that he would vote against the Senate or the House health care bill as they were constructed. And I agree with the gentleman we need to do something about health care. I would remind him that it is the CBO who has pointed out that our Republican plan is the plan that actually does reduce health care premiums. That is where we started this whole discussion, was to reduce health care costs for the American people, and continue to reform the system so we can maintain the quality we have. And, Madam Speaker, I just say that it is time, I think, for this body to finally listen to the American people and what they are asking us to do, run this body in an open and transparent way, stop the back room deals, the Cornhusker Kickbacks, the Louisiana Purchases, and make it so that this is once again the people's body. And we can all then deliberate out in the open, agree where we can agree to produce the positive reforms that the people expect. With that, Madam Speaker, I would ask the gentleman what his intentions are or what he thinks we can see in this House as far as an attempt to address the issue that the majority leader said was the number one issue on the minds of voters in Massachusetts, as well as the country, and that is the economy. Before we left for the winter break, we had a bill that came up that was dubbed a jobs bill. There was a lot of difficulty I know on his side in mustering the needed votes to get it passed. And I was wondering is there legislation he has in mind that would be offered to address the situation that Americans confront, which is double digit unemployment? And I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. I would tell the gentleman we still don't embrace the public option. We don't embrace it because it is a path to single payer. So I would ask the gentleman again, the Speaker earlier today said, quote, ``I don't think it is possible to pass the Senate bill in the House. I don't see the votes for it at this time.'' I would ask the gentleman, Madam Speaker, if that is an accurate statement that we can then count on.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman, and I take the gentleman's comments to heart that he wants to do what is right by his constituents and the people of this country. But the question we have before us, the question that the voters of Massachusetts had before them, just like the voters in Virginia and New Jersey, had a lot to do with the health care bill that this House deliberated upon and passed, and the health care bill that the Senate deliberated upon and passed. And, Madam Speaker, I would say to the gentleman there is very little disagreement among the pollsters that have tested where the American people are on these health care bills. They are opposed to these health care bills. And you may insinuate that some of the comments that have been made by individuals in this body or the other on our side of the aisle were meant to obstruct. But I can tell the gentleman, Madam Speaker, that the American people right now want this health care bill defeated. They want health care reform, but not in the way that has been constructed under either one of these bills. And if I recall, and I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to meet with me several months ago, and I don't want to take his comments as being dismissive of our proposal, because I handed him a summary, but I can tell the gentleman right here is the House Republican bill. And there are elements in this bill we can both agree upon. The plan is still before us. And if we take into consideration that, we have got a plan. The public doesn't like the gentleman's plan. And fast forward to a discussion the gentleman and I had on the floor, I believe, Madam Speaker, that the gentleman told me it was not worth his while to engage in conversation with Republicans because we would not embrace the public option. I would tell the Speaker----

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. I would ask, Madam Speaker, and I would first preface the question by saying that this country saw a pretty extraordinary election in Massachusetts a few nights ago. From all reports, it seems that part of the outcome of that election was due to the health care bill and the difficulties which the gentleman's side has had in passing the bill. We on this side, Madam Speaker, would say there has been no bipartisan effort to pass a health care bill. And so if we are going to see a resolution of the differences that the gentleman refers to, those differences are clearly being on his side of the aisle because, Madam Speaker, we feel that we continue to be left out of the process. So I would ask the gentleman if he has not decided whether he is bringing up the Senate bill or the House bill again, will we see the process start over? Will we see his side take the message from the Massachusetts election to involve Republicans in discussion over the health care bill and have a transparent process the way we believe ought to happen as well as I believe the American people think should happen? I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if he can comment on some of the press reports that we have seen this morning about the Speaker's statement that this House and you will not be bringing to this House the Senate health care bill for consideration. 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

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon in strong support of this important relief legislation for the people of Haiti. On January 12, 2010, Haiti was shaken by an earthquake unparalleled in its history. As horrendous as they are, the pictures in our newspapers and on TV can only begin to tell the story of the suffering of the Haitian people. Just this morning, the people of that country had another scare, experiencing another shock with a magnitude of 6.1. Madam Speaker, when crisis calls, American citizens are at their finest. The people of the U.S. have always been, and continue to be, a generous and giving people. And whether it is offering shelter to orphan children, making cash donations, or simply volunteering time, when tragedy strikes, the American people take action. Charitable donations have already begun pouring into organizations assisting in the relief efforts. This legislation allows generous Americans who make a cash donation to the Haitian relief effort to treat those donations as if they were made in the tax year 2009. Similar policy has been used in past tragedies, and studies show that it actually increases the total amount of charitable contributions. I want to thank my colleague, Majority Whip Clyburn, for his assistance in bringing this legislation to the floor. I would also like to thank the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from Michigan and their leadership in bringing forward this important bill. While it is often the differences between the parties in Congress that makes the news, this legislation demonstrates that we can come together on commonsense proposals to ease the suffering of our fellow man. When our offices discussed last week how we could help encourage charitable donations for the relief effort, and in particular this proposal, it was clear that partisanship had been set aside. I think the American people and those in Haiti are all the better for it. I ask for support of this legislation.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. And I, too, stand with much respect as we today commemorate the life of Paula Nowakowski. To her family that is here with us, we gather today in this moment to salute a dear friend, a dedicated staffer, an indispensable member of our leader's team and, frankly, of our conference's team. Paula had an unshakable devotion to our country and its principles. As the Speaker just indicated, she had a very innovative spirit about her and about the commonsense solutions that we are trying to arrive at here to address the challenges of the people whom we represent. Her sage advice and counsel made her an invaluable resource to our Members each and every day and, frankly, to this institution. She will be in our thoughts every day as we pass legislation that empowers individuals and that lifts the American spirit. Paula was particularly concerned about the working families in her beloved State of Michigan. Almost daily, we would hear in leadership meetings, in conference meetings about the plight of the manufacturing workers who would see nothing but closed-up factories and question their future. Paula was there for them. Paula's life was cut short way too soon. We will, Mr. Leader, all miss her terribly, but we will find strength, determination and inspiration in the example that she set for all of us. All of us, I guess, can learn from this when it is all said and done. What is most important is not when you die but how you lived. Everyone who knew Paula knows, as the leader said, she was tough as nails, but she lived every day to the fullest, giving her heart and her soul to help make America a better, more prosperous place. We will all remember her each day. We will remember her when we do the work on this floor, we will remember her in our places of worship, and we will smile and think of her the next time that her beloved Detroit Red Wings win another Stanley Cup. Our party and our Nation owe Paula a tremendous debt of gratitude. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to read a letter from Senator Mitch McConnell, the distinguished Senate Minority Leader. ``Dear Leader Boehner: ``I share your sorrow over the untimely passing of Paula Nowakowski. I too considered Paula a trusted confidant. Over the years, I came to deeply value her candid counsel, her sound instincts and her warm good humor. She was unafraid to speak the truth. Her sense of teamwork and loyalty helped to lay a foundation of open communication and trust on both sides of the Capitol dome. My staff and I will miss her tremendously. ``It is a testament to the respect and admiration that she enjoyed on this side of the Capitol that if any of us ever started a conversation with `I just talked to Paula,' or `Paula said,' everyone from Senators to staffers not only knew who you were talking about, but that whatever she said carried an implicit guarantee. You could take it to the bank. She was regarded by everyone here as a consummate professional, a tremendous asset to our party and the Congress, and sharp as they come--in short, an extraordinary woman. ``All those qualities aren't easy to find in one place. But that is what made Paula stand out, and that's why her passing has prompted so many heartfelt expressions of grief and admiration from both sides of the aisle. It's a truly trusted adviser who can finish his or her boss's sentences--and she was one who could.'' And often did, I might add. ``It is also a rare staffer who could be so intensely focused on the business of the House even as she succeeded in building such a strong sense of teamwork with the Senate. ``So on behalf of the entire Senate family, please accept our condolences on this loss to you, your staff, to Congress, and, indeed, to our country. Hopefully the memory of her spirit and example will provide some measure of consolation at this difficult time. ``Yours Sincerely, Mitch McConnell, Republican Leader.'' At this time, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from California. Madam Speaker, Winston Churchill once said that, ``All men make mistakes, but only wise men learn from their mistakes.'' Today it is apparent that Congress has not learned anything. The bill on the floor today is just another round of spending that doubles down the failure of last February's so-called stimulus plan while ballooning the deficit. The first stimulus plan and bill failed to hold down unemployment, but it successfully increased our reliance on borrowed money. Worse, a lot of the money designated for infrastructure, those shovel-ready projects we all heard about, hasn't even gotten out of Washington yet. Why is it still here if it was designed to create jobs? Sadly, pouring billions into the very same programs will meet a similar dismal fate. Just as bad, this legislation continues to fall hopelessly short of providing real relief to small businesses so they can resume hiring, investing, and expanding. Now is not the time to spend an additional $150 billion we don't have. It's time to come together to ease the burden on small businesses and to start giving them a sense of certainty so they can go about the business of creating jobs and prosperity. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this so-called ``jobs'' bill.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentlelady, as well as the gentleman from California, for their leadership, and bringing this bill to the floor. Mr. Speaker, a nuclear Iran would be a game-changing development that poses irreparable damage to global security and stability. Yet, with each passing day, the regime in Tehran brazenly forges ahead to make this nightmare scenario a reality. These are times of sharp partisan rancor in our Nation's Capitol. But today we have the chance to come together to take a major step forward in the interests of world peace. The time for decisive action to head off Iran's nuclear program is now. By passing the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, we send the overdue message that the cost of doing business with Iran is too much to bear. Mr. Speaker, this legislation leverages our economic muscle to punish any individual or company who sells or ships gasoline to Iran. It offers one of our best chances to convince Iran that it is firmly in its interest to abandon its nuclear ambitions. As Iran takes a more belligerent approach to its nuclear program, the United States will not fall asleep at the wheel. We must lead. With the passage of this bill, we must, and will, rally the international community in order to stop the Middle East from moving irreversibly toward nuclearization. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Well, Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the gentleman and say that I was, first of all, heartened by the fact that when we did come into the meeting with the President at the White House that he actually had a copy already of our Republican No Cost Jobs Plan. And I took that as a positive sign that perhaps we could actually work together in doing some things that don't cost anything. And I would say to the gentleman, his comment that nothing is for free, there are some things that we could do together that don't cost anything that will, I think, produce jobs and most people agree they could produce jobs. And some of those being--and we told the President we would respond, and I would share that with the gentleman, also-- there are a host of rules and regulations being promulgated by this administration and its agencies that frankly harm job creation. Those are the kinds of things we could stop right now if we are going to put jobs first and make sure we do everything we can to get Americans back to work. As for the TARP funds themselves, Mr. Speaker, my recollection, we voted for that authorization of money in order to stave off a collapse in our capital markets. Most were in agreement that we were on the edge of an abyss and something needed to be done, and so we took the action. Within the proscription of that statute was the definition, or perhaps the mission, of those funds. Those funds were there to make sure our capital markets didn't collapse. Now, all of us want to be able to say we're doing things to get people back to work. But I think what the American people are growing tired of is Congress saying that it is spending money for one purpose and then all of a sudden deciding, whoops, there's another need out there; let me then go, when we get this back into the Treasury, spend it somewhere else. So, Mr. Speaker, the reason why our motion to recommit was crafted the way it was was because we feel very strongly in the emergency nature of the TARP program, and in the statute we called for the return of those moneys to the general fund, essentially to the taxpayers, and not to go and spend the money again, because it's borrowed in the first place. So I would say to the gentleman, we look forward to doing some things that don't cost anything to create jobs. Some of the discussion at the White House centered on trade. We have three pending free trade agreements. If I recall correctly, the President indicated his support for those agreements, because all of us know those agreements will increase exports from this country. I believe, if I'm correct, that the leader himself, the gentleman from Maryland, did say, Mr. Speaker, that he would like to see those exports increased and perhaps those bills taken care of. Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? If we're serious about it, why don't we do that next week? We could leave before the Christmas holiday, and most people would say that by passing those bills, we could be on the path to creating 250,000 new jobs in this country. I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, and would ask about the Speaker's planned codel to Copenhagen. I'm aware, I think correctly, that there are about 30 Members that will be going with the Speaker to Copenhagen, scheduled to depart Wednesday evening next week, and would like to ask whether that will impact our schedule for work next week or does he expect that we will be in for 5 days with the Speaker and the codel gone? And I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. And I would say in closing that the gentleman may be right, it may be that the cause for the 2006 loss and the majority now coming into power was because of the policies, because of the war, because of fiscal practices, what have you, any number of things. But certainly now the gentleman knows that the public is not too keen on the agenda being pushed by this majority. In fact, most of the people in this country feel we're headed down the wrong track. But also, Mr. Speaker, the public is extremely, extremely concerned about their future. We've got to restore the trust in this institution, Mr. Speaker. We've got to abide by the same rules that we expect the public to abide by, and that is transparency. That is, when we commit to a certain set of rules to live by, we ought not change them midcourse. That is not what we should be doing. We shouldn't be changing the rules of the game as far as the TARP program is concerned. The public thought that money would be paid back. We shouldn't be changing course in terms of the 72-hour rule. The public has gotten to know that and expects us to give them their right to know, Mr. Speaker. That's what I'm talking about in terms of this Democratic majority in this House living up to the public trust that they gained in 2006. With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and I yield back.

Mr. CANTOR. I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat amused by the gentleman's commitment to give the public and Members as much time as they, the majority, could. Again, we have a 72-hour rule in place, I thought, and that was for the very purpose of allowing all of us, including our constituents, the right to realize what's going on in this House. Obviously, we have a lot of work undone for the year. We've got 5 legislative days next week. Certainly, if we are going to be incurring the type of debt and expenditure that we are looking at, surely we could make sure that there is adequate notice and that the 72-hour rule is abided by. Again, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, this is what the public is tired of. I find it somewhat interesting that the gentleman says it's okay for the majority to do that because when we were in the majority we did that. Well, I know the gentleman knows, we were let go in the majority in 2006 and they assumed the majority. And again, there is a reason for that, the public is looking for transparency, the public is looking for fiscal responsibility, and certainly, when we are talking the numbers that we are talking, in terms of taxpayer dollars, $1.8 trillion in new debt, certainly, I think, Mr. Speaker, we should afford the public its right to know. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, and I think he makes the case for all the more reason we do something now. If there is no immediate impact tomorrow, at least we could be well on the way to fostering that impact on those jobs for the Americans who, as he correctly states, are facing a lot of trouble right now being out of work. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman about the 72-hour rule and the importance of that that we felt back earlier this year. And because of the way that the stimulus bill was brought to the floor earlier, in January or February, the backlash was such that I believe the gentleman and his party committed to 72 hours to review any bill before it was voted on, for the Members as well as the public to realize their right to know. Mr. Speaker, my question to the gentleman is: Why now have we abandoned that commitment? Why have we abandoned the public's right to know in major pieces of legislation this week, in both the omnibus bill as well as the bank bailout, the TARP II bill that we just passed? Both of those bills came to this floor. The House voted on it, on the example of the omnibus, and within 24 hours, not 72. And in the example of what we consider to be an extension of TARP and a bank bailout bill, there was a 249-page manager's amendment that was made available 8 a.m. yesterday, and that very same manager's amendment was voted on at 8:54 p.m. last night. How is it that we have now decided that it is not important to recognize and abide by the 72-hour rule? And I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman recognizing that there are differences, absolutely, on how we believe that we can work on getting this economy going again. I do believe that we have some similarities, which is why we proposed the No Cost Jobs Plan. So I ask the gentleman again, are we going to see the three trade bills come to the floor? Because in my estimation, I believe at least one, if not all of the bills, can garner a majority of the votes on this floor, something we could do next week, leaving town saying we are committed to job creation. Are we going to see those bills, Mr. Speaker? And I will yield.