Eric Cantor

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. I would say in response, I, nor most of my conference, was not here in 1993 on that vote. I would simply say to the gentleman, as he knows, in the stimulus debate and on down through the rest--cap-and-trade, the health care, the budget debate--the proposals that we are offering, especially as he refers to in the economic arena, are not the same policies. We have proffered an agenda which speaks to small businesses. And, Mr. Speaker, I would say I don't think it is necessarily a constructive route to take for us to say who was worse because none of us, as the gentleman suggests, likes the fact that we've lost 2\1/2\ million jobs in the last 8 months. And if you ask the small business people in our districts if they think things are better, I think there's pretty much unanimity that small businesses are having difficulties still keeping the lights on, maintaining payroll. Something is amiss. We've got to be focusing on how we can expand the opportunity for those small businesses to grow again. It's very central to the idea of getting the capital markets straight, of getting our fiscal house in order. I am very troubled by the bills that are coming along in the Financial Services Committee, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, yet more attempts by the majority to impose the will of Washington on the entrepreneurs across this country, restricting ultimately their ability to access credit. You know, we do have differences, Mr. Speaker. I am just hopeful that we can find a way to work together to promote jobs. With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for his time.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, as to the scheduling of a bill dealing with sanctions on Iran, we've had discussions together on the floor and elsewhere regarding the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act. And Mr. Speaker, I'd say to the gentleman, now, in particular, I think time is of the essence that we act because, as we have seen over the last 10 days, Iran revealing its secret enrichment program, indicating, yet again, that the regime in that country refuses to comply with international law or the will of the world community. So it is my sense that we should, and we can work together on this issue. The gentleman had indicated last time we were engaged in a colloquy that he was going to meet with Chairman Berman of the Foreign Affairs Committee about moving that bill and bringing it to the floor. So I would ask the gentleman if he could tell us when we could expect that bill to come to the floor.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman because I was going to ask about the Speaker's commitment prior. So I thank the gentleman for that.

Mr. CANTOR. I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. And Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the gentleman further as to the timing of a bill. I understand that he's indicated that there is no resolution as to exactly when a bill would come to the floor.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I am proud to recognize the Town of Orange as it celebrates its 275th anniversary. The Town of Orange is located northeast of Charlottesville, near James Madison's estate at Montpelier, viewing the Blue Ridge Mountains. The Town of Orange was a strategically important location during the American Civil War. Just north of town, the Rapidan River was effectively the northern border of the Confederacy for several years. Consequently, the area witnessed countless troop movements, patrols, skirmishes, and encampments. In addition, the Town of Orange served as General Robert E. Lee's headquarters during that time. In fact, General Lee worshipped at the St. Thomas Episcopal Church on Caroline Street, which still stands today. The town continued to thrive into the twentieth century. Fire destroyed much of the eastern part of town in 1908, but many of the buildings constructed shortly after the fire still remain. In fact, Orange was well-known for its silk mill, which produced many of the parachutes used by U.S. troops during World War II. The silk mill finally closed in the 1970s, but the building still remains and is used by local businesses. Orange residents will celebrate and honor the town's heritage and 275 years of history with events and activities throughout the year. In conjunction with the Fall Fiber Festival at Montpelier, the Gordonsville Street Festival, and other county-wide events, the Town of Orange will have a Blues Festival on Main Street on October 3rd to mark the anniversary. Madam Speaker, please join me in congratulating the fine citizens of Orange as they celebrate their town's anniversary and wishing them the best for their continued growth and success.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill for several reasons. In my estimation, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this bill reflects a bit of gamesmanship within the discussion over the extension of a highway reauthorization bill. I know that the gentleman from Minnesota has made very clear his desire to pass an increase in the gas tax to fund a multiyear reauthorization bill. Simultaneously, while the gentleman has expressed that desire, this administration, as well as the folks on the other side of this building in the Senate, have indicated that they do not want to support a tax increase at this time and instead have advocated an 18-month extension of the highway bill. It appears that the gentleman from Minnesota has, in response, come up with this bill which would give a 3-month extension seemingly to buy time to bring the parties together to the table to agree on a gas tax. Now, Mr. Speaker, let's face it, the American people right now especially cannot afford an increase in the gas tax. Such a tax would hit the unemployed, would hit small businesses, would hit those least able to afford it the hardest. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, our States and our contractors who are there needing some certainty deserve better than just a 3-month extension. Mr. Speaker, we on our side of the aisle stand ready to work with the gentleman as well as with his leadership on a thoughtful approach to highway reauthorization. What we are asking for is a public rejection of increasing the gas tax. We say ``no'' to higher gas taxes.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring about next week's schedule, and I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his time.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. I think I am to take heart in that position because I do know that the administration today had downgraded its alarm, if you will, downgraded the threat that Iran poses. I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. My concern lies in the fact of the reports out of the administration today, and perhaps new intelligence information is being relied upon to result in a swift turnaround in our policy vis-a-vis Iran which is why I raised this question and seek from the gentleman his consistent position that has been up until now that we do face a threat in Iran in its current capacity. As the gentleman states, we have uniformed armed men and women in Insirlik, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, throughout the region that certainly are in the line of Shahab-3 missiles that could do serious harm to American life and interests. I think out of that concern, I ask the gentleman could we see an expedited push on this bill to demonstrate that this Congress, this House, is not yielding to this notion that somehow Iran is no longer a threat? I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn to the question next week surrounding the House's actions regarding issues confronting the assembly of the United Nations in New York next week. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, and he and I both traveled to Israel over the August recess, I know that the gentleman is as concerned as I am about the potential nuclear developments in Iran and the fact, I believe, that both of us feel that Iran poses an existential threat not only to the United States but also to our democratic ally, Israel. There were some reports today regarding some shifting of that notion, the policy behind that notion, from the administration. We had the Vice President today indicate that somehow because Iran did not have the potential capacity to launch a missile to reach our shores, that somehow we could deal with the threat of Iran. We also have news that indicates a shift in our policy of missile defense in terms of our commitment to our allies in Europe as well as Israel. Again I would say, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and I have both worked hard on the issue of trying to stop the development of nuclear weapons in Iran specifically aimed at our only democratic ally, Israel, in the region. I have believed all along and I have spoken to the gentleman about it, that we ought to be moving as quickly as possible on the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act. I would like to ask the gentleman, with all that having been said, Would it not be appropriate at this point to bring that bill to the floor to give the President some tools at his disposal while he meets with the leader of Iran in New York next week? I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. I would like to ask the follow-up, Mr. Speaker, whether the gentleman believes the House will be waiting for the Senate to act prior to a bill coming to the floor of this House. I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman indicated, we will be considering several extensions of expiring law next week. I would like to ask, though, with the recent reports of the Senate Finance Committee marking up their health care bill, whether the gentleman could tell us if the House could expect that health care legislation would be moving to the floor either next week or sometime soon. I yield.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader. Mr. Speaker, I am having some difficulty understanding how it is that we are on the floor today debating this resolution. I would like to first speak to the claims made by my colleague on the other side of the aisle, the majority whip, in pointing out what are alleged to be precedents for this resolution. As he knows, those instances that he referred to, whether it be the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) or the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) when they came to the well of this body to speak to our colleagues, it was as a result of conduct displayed, number one, in the case of Mr. Stark, during debate on the floor of this House, and number two, on the part of Mr. Thomas, conduct that took place among members in a committee on which I sit, the Ways and Means, two very distinct situations from the one we have here at hand. Again, I don't understand how it is a priority that we are here on this particular resolution. The resolution, as has been pointed out, creates no job. The resolution does nothing to do anything to increase access to quality health care. The resolution does nothing to address the issues of national security. Plain and simple, this resolution does not reflect the priority of the American people. Now, President Obama came to this Chamber last week and he admonished us, Mr. Speaker. He admonished us to stop with the partisan bickering. In fact, he echoed the sentiments that he expressed during his inaugural address when he said, ``We may still be a young Nation, but it is time to set aside childish things.'' Now, as the leader said, as the gentleman from South Carolina himself said, he admits that what he did was inappropriate. He was on national television indicating he shouldn't have done it. He wouldn't do it again. He also said to the Nation, he called the President. As the leader indicated, the President graciously accepted the apology. I am told the Vice President has also accepted the apology. What more does the gentleman want? That's why I am at a loss as to what this is if it is not a partisan stunt. So I believe we ought to accept what the President and the Speaker and others have said: Let's get on with the business of the people. Let's try and get over the divide and stick to the course of trying to work on things we agree on, or things that we have a potential to do away with the disagreements, not the partisanship. Now, this is the bill. This is the famed H.R. 3200, Mr. Speaker, and there are several issues in here the American people have spoken out on. The first is the claim that we ought to be able to keep what we have if we are talking about health insurance. On page 16 of the bill, there is a section entitled, ``Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage.'' That's what we all are trying to do for the 85 or some percent of this country who has health insurance. You know what, our side says despite that title, there are provisions in there which begin to require individuals and their insurers to do certain things which make it somewhat difficult if not impossible to allow for folks to keep what they have. The next issue that is of import certainly to the American people and to this body is the question of access to Federal benefits by those who are here illegally. Now, the President stood on this floor in this body, Mr. Speaker, and said that he did not believe that there was any access for those here illegally to Federal benefits. In fact, on page 143, there is a section which speaks to the issue that there should be no Federal benefit for those here illegally. The problem that we have on this side is there is no requirement of verification of legal status. And in fact the White House, in fact Senator Baucus and others have since come out and said, You know what, you're right. These are the kinds of things we could be doing right now to try and accomplish what it is that the American people have sent us here to do, and they expect us to do that in a deliberate manner that produces a positive result, which means we all have got to do that living within our means and to ensure that we do not break the bank in passing this health care reform measure. So I implore this House, Mr. Speaker, let's try and get back to the business of the people.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, in these desperate economic times, Congress must undertake all of its actions with a watchful eye toward the effects on job creation; yet this, unmistakably, has not been the case. From the stimulus bill that just did not get it right, to the cap- and-trade legislation, to now the ongoing effort to pass a health care bill on the backs of small business, the majority has put jobs on the back burner to muscle through an agenda, frankly, that is anathema to the American people. Slapping an additional 8 percent payroll tax on struggling small businesses that can't afford to pay for insurance doesn't create jobs; it kills them. Imposing a 5 percent surtax on small businesses, on America's producers, doesn't hasten our recovery; it prolongs it. The American people deserve an agenda that puts jobs first. That is why we ask the majority to work with us. Republicans do have a plan that can expand affordable coverage in health care. It will allow you to keep what you have and not do it by squeezing small business. I urge the majority to begin this with us. Let's start over. Let's get it right for the American people.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the gentleman speak of the prospects of the House considering the health care bill. I would ask the gentleman the status of that discussion and whether this House will be delivering on the Speaker's commitment that this House was going to vote on her health care bill. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. So to reiterate, I will say that I heard the gentleman say the probability of taking up the health care bill by the 31st is very small, and I suspect that is due to what we have read in the news reports for successive days now about the difficulty that your side is having in gaining a majority in support of the bill. We have said all along, Mr. Speaker, there is a reason that there's a bipartisan majority against the health care bill being proposed by the Speaker, and that is because people are unsure about the direction a government health care plan would take them. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman knows we stand ready and willing to work together to try and effect reform for the American people. We on the Republican side of the aisle do not accept the status quo. We want to see a health care reform bill that works for the American people, maintains choice and quality, and reduces costs so more folks can have access to coverage, and that is not the bill before us, at least that which is being reported. So I would ask the gentleman, if there is a very little probability that this bill would come up prior to the 31st, and given that he and I have had some discussion about the schedule, how long will we be in session beyond the 31st? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CANTOR. I will say to the gentleman, obviously, with much disappointment, and I think really reflecting the disappointment on the part of the American people, that we should be having a much more robust debate on these issues. Certainly, if we are going to be addressing the issue of health care, and the gentleman says that his side is insistent on rushing back to the floor, insisting on some political deadline, then I don't understand why it is we couldn't have an open debate on some of the other issues if we are going to be waiting around here until next Monday or Tuesday. So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I yield back.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. 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. I think the gentleman, though, speaks to the point I'm trying to make. We are trying to get things right here, and spending billions of dollars for spending's sake is not the goal here, and I know he agrees with me on that, that we are trying to effect the most prudent expenditure of taxpayer dollars in these very difficult economic times. As the gentleman knows, we voted on a PAYGO bill this week, and frankly, the spirit behind that PAYGO bill was to attempt to restrain the type of spending that we've seen this Congress conduct. In fact, this week, in one of the reports, one of the authors of an opinion column said, frankly, we are spending--the spending PAYGO bill that was passed this week was full of loopholes. And again, we know that the PAYGO bill that was passed was that. It wasn't a holistic PAYGO bill. It wasn't something that, frankly, will do much to address the runaway spending. So we still sit here, Mr. Speaker, and want to have an open process so we can contribute to holding back the runaway spending in this town. So I would say to the gentleman, just as he has said to me, we ought to be looking to try and open up this process again. We were not allowed to do so in the PAYGO debate and address the number one concern of this government right now, which is the runaway spending. We have not been allowed to do so in any of the appropriations bills, and if we are going to be here through the weekend, as the gentleman may suggest, why isn't it we couldn't take that time to debate the DOD bill in an open and full, transparent manner? I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Obviously, if the process had worked differently, I would suggest to the gentleman that if we were allowed to try and put forward the kinds of proposals that we are attempting to do and there was a receptivity on your side to allow for some of the ``free-market principles and cost-control suggestions'' that have been made, according to a Member on your side, Mr. Minnick, back a few days ago, maybe we would be on a better course. In the same way, I think a colleague from the gentleman's State, Mr. Kratovil, said, the bill is not even out of all the committees and we're already talking about voting on this. We feel the same way, that there has been very little willingness to work together to try and get a health care plan right. Mr. Speaker, the way that I believe we get it right is to tell the people of this country exactly what would be in store for them by the insistence that there be a government plan involved in their health care. So I would tell the gentleman, we obviously stand ready to work with him and the Speaker to perfect a plan that could get much larger than just probably the small majority that he'll be able to produce, given the news reports that we are hearing. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman about his anticipation of next week's appropriations bill, the DOD bill. He and I, as the gentleman knows, have had a longstanding discussion on the rules. We, on this side of the aisle, have been extremely upset, as he knows, about the change in precedent in this House that somehow it was okay for this Congress to leave the precedent of open rule, to insist that we not be able to hold open discussions on issues surrounding the constitutional obligation of this body to spend taxpayer funds. So I would ask, even after the good faith attempt that we have made to open up rules and have been rebuffed at each turn, is it his hope, is it his intention, that perhaps on the DOD bill, whether we could see that happen? And I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. I didn't hear the gentleman, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman again for some clarification. Did I just hear the gentleman say that we will not be considering the health care bill this week?

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Indiana. Thomas Jefferson warned that, ``To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.'' Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment as the underlying legislation embodies the very action Jefferson cautioned against. About 7 out of 10 Americans oppose public funding of abortion; yet this bill defies their moral concerns by funding groups like Planned Parenthood, the single largest abortion provider in America. Planned Parenthood performs over 300,000 abortions per year while receiving $350 million in taxpayer dollars annually. The gentleman from Indiana's amendment does not reduce overall funds for family planning services. It merely ensures that no taxpayer dollars are used to fund entities that conduct abortions. It is a reasonable approach, Mr. Chairman, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.