Eric Cantor

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, at a time when millions of Americans are losing their jobs and families are desperately seeking employment, this Congress and this administration have made job creation a secondary concern. As a result, they have squandered a golden opportunity to put people back to work. Frankly, the American people have just had enough. They have had enough of a stimulus bill that has wasted hundreds of billions of dollars and not staved off job loss. They have had enough of the national energy tax that will impose extraordinary job-killing taxes on the people of this country. And now, Mr. Speaker, they have had enough of talk of a health care bill that not only will fail to deliver the access and quality that we need, but it will cripple small businesses by imposing an 8 percent payroll tax on them. Mr. Speaker, the question is: Where are the jobs? Congress and this administration have been asleep for too long--and we can do better.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Without delving into a rehash, perhaps, of past fiscal practices or whether Vice President Cheney's remarks may have been taken out of context, I would ask the gentleman again, is the bill that will be brought to the floor identical to that which he indicates he signed on to and that which is being sponsored by the chief sponsor, the gentleman from Indiana?

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

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if he could give me some indication of the progress on the offer of compromise to move forward on appropriations bills to get us back closer to what has been the precedent of this House in terms of open rules in consideration of expending taxpayer moneys.

Mr. CANTOR. Well, I thank the gentleman for that commitment. Mr. Speaker, I will then turn to the issue surrounding the stimulus debate and really a related issue to what the gentleman had referred to as far as the scoring on the health care bill and that is the continuing concern over the exploding debt and what we are doing in this Congress and the impact that expanding the debt load of this country will have on America's families. I do know the gentleman has indicated a notice for a PAYGO bill for next week. I would like to ask the gentleman whether this bill will be identical to that which has been introduced by the members of the Blue Dog Coalition. I think the chief sponsor on that bill might be the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill).

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. I know the gentleman does share all of our concerns as well as, I'm sure, the President's concern that we actually do something to bring down health care costs while at the same time preserving the quality of care that the Americans who do have health care coverage right now receive. I would like to ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, does he expect the House and the American public to have 72 hours to read the entire bill once the committee process has concluded and prior to the bill's coming to the floor for a vote?

Mr. CANTOR. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CANTOR. The gentleman knows we are in extraordinary economic times, and we have got tremendous job loss, and we've got a debt burden that continues to amass that may very well impact the ability for an investment-led recovery. I would indicate to the gentleman we stand ready to work with him in trying to return to some sense of fiscal sanity in this body. With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much.

Mr. CANTOR. I will just end my comments by indicating that I have read some reports which say--perhaps inaccurately reported or not--that the bill that you expect to come to the floor will not include the discretionary spending cap. The cap certainly would be a necessary thing to limit the double-digit increases that we're seeing in spending this Congress and the appropriations bills that have been coming to the floor. So I will indicate to the gentleman that we certainly will be supportive of those types of commonsense spending caps.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for that. I would ask the gentleman if he could give us some sense of where we are in terms of the health care reform bill working its way through the committee process right now. As the gentleman knows, I'm on the Ways and Means Committee; and we completed our markup on the bill last night or in the early hours this morning. The other two committees I know are hard at work in terms of delivering their products. But I did note that the gentleman was reported as having said in the press--I believe it was this morning in his response to a question about the Congressional Budget Office's commentary and analysis of the health care proposal. Mr. Speaker, if I could loosely paraphrase the gentleman's remarks, I believe he said, We need to go back to the drawing board as far as the scoring of the bill is concerned. I would like to inquire about what the gentleman had in mind as far as that's concerned.

Mr. CANTOR. I would note, as we are almost nearing the end of the July session and with three appropriations bills left, there is yet limited opportunity, but still some, and the minority stands ready and willing to work with the gentleman, with him and his desire, as is mine, to return to an open process in appropriations rules.

Mr. CANTOR. Yes, I did.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for that. I know the gentleman shares my concern with the reality that took place around the stimulus bill and around the 300-some-odd page amendment to the cap-and-trade bill that was rushed to the floor, having come out of the Rules Committee with an extensive manager's amendment without the ability for anyone in this House to read the manager's amendment and the bill in its entirety. I do think--and I think the gentleman would agree with me--that it is in the interest of the American public, and it is their right to know that we do give adequate time for the Members to read the bill as well as for the American public.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, this is our first colloquy since the July 4 recess, and we are scheduled to be in session for 3 more weeks before the next recess. So, Madam Speaker, I'd ask the gentleman if he could give us a sense of what will be considered on the floor beyond next week.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, the Senate is scheduled to be in session 1 week longer than we are in the House, and I ask the gentleman if he expects us or anticipates our working into August, as the Senate is scheduled to do. I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Speaking of rules, I want to, first of all, thank the gentleman for the ongoing dialogue that he and I have had over the last several weeks regarding how the House will go forward in terms of deliberating on appropriations bills. I sincerely express my gratitude for his engagement, his patience and the back and forth; and I know that we have been unsuccessful thus far in getting to what I believe is a mutually desirable goal, which is to return to the precedents of the House in terms of open rules surrounding appropriations bills. Madam Speaker, I'd say to the gentleman, he has noticed two approps bills for next week, and I would like to ask him, what kind of rules does he expect these bills to be considered under?

Mr. CANTOR. I do want to, again, express my gratitude for his belief, as a former appropriator, that we ought to be operating under open rules and an open process when we are talking about deliberating and executing our constitutionally mandated role of expending and authorizing taxpayer dollars. And I do know that the gentleman shares my belief that we ought to get there. And I do also know and the gentleman has been very forthright in telling me and the leader on our side about his desire to want to get the work done of the people. I don't think that we disagree on trying to get the work done. I do believe, though, that we do owe to the American public the ability to see our work and the ability to have a full discussion on the separate issues that surround each appropriations bill. As the gentleman knows even more than many in this House, as he has served here and on the Appropriations Committee, the precedents of the House is open rules. And he and I have had discussions about what, perhaps, our party did when it was in the majority. During the Republican majority, the most appropriations bills ever to be considered under a restrictive rule during any one year was in 1997 when there were four bills discussed under a restricted rule. Again, that was in 1997. As the gentleman knows, so far this year--it's his party in the majority--there have been six bills that have been deliberated and discussed and debated under a restricted rule, and we, seemingly, are on track for 12. Again, I know from the gentleman's discussions with me that we agree that we need to be under an open process. But as the gentleman has told me, it is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin, who has basically overruled nearly all of us here in the House. And essentially, Madam Speaker, it seems that the gentleman who is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee closed down the process again this week, prevented Members on our side and the other side from exercising their constitutional duties while disenfranchising the millions of American citizens that they represent. So I, for the life of me, don't understand how it is that any individual, much less the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, is content to spend the taxpayer dollars without allowing there to be a full and open debate. In fact, I would bring a quote to the majority leader's attention from the gentleman from Wisconsin from October 6, 2000, when Mr. Obey of Wisconsin said, in the context of discussing the need for open and full debate, ``We have gotten so far from regular order that I fear that if this continues, the House will not have the capacity to return to its precedence and procedures of the House that have given true meaning to the term representative democracy.'' He went on to say, ``The reason that we have stuck to regular order as long as we have in this institution is to protect the rights of every Member to participate; and we lose those rights, we lose the right to be called ``the greatest deliberative body left in the world.'' And I say that and I bring that to the gentleman's attention for exactly the point of what he and I have been trying to achieve. Let's open up the process. Again, bearing in mind, Madam Speaker, the gentleman's goal of trying to finish the work, I know that he knows--I have represented--I will do all we can; and we on this side feel that we can meet his time frame. I would ask the gentleman if he is still in the posture of being able to deliver the ability for us to have the choice of the amendments that we offer. So if we were to now say--and I'm willing to offer this to the gentleman--if we were to say, fine, as the gentleman suggested 2 months ago outside the precedents of the House, if we were to agree to time limits, then we could have the ability to offer the amendments and have full and open discussion on the appropriations bills, as he had asked several months ago; and I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from California. He really echoes the remarks, I think, and my sense in the beginning of this discussion many, many weeks ago that he and I have spoken, as well as spoken with the gentleman from Maryland. I do think the gentleman from Maryland agrees. But I would just leave this subject, Mr. Speaker, with that fact that the gentleman from Maryland has said he will get back to me in terms of the offer that is on the table. And as he may know, and certainly the chairman of the Appropriations Committee does know, that in the year 2007, when the Republicans became the minority, it took 23.3 days to discuss appropriations bills for a total of 170\1/4\ hours. If we compare that, and I'm sure that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee does know this, or could find this out, in 1995, the first year that his party took minority status or was relegated to that status, the appropriations bills took 31 days and 205 hours. So we are not talking about anything other than the Record here, and the Record indicates the minority in 1995 took a lot more time than we did in 2007. Now, in keeping with the gentleman from Maryland's desire to get the work done, the gentleman from California says he shares that, as do I, as does our leader, as does our ranking member on the Appropriations Committee. We are committed to doing that. I look forward to the gentleman's return in terms of the offer that I have expressed. And my friend, the gentleman from California, I will yield.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman, and in closing, I would leave the gentleman with two points: one, the plan that the House Republicans put on the table and presented to this President was focused on small businesses. If he looks at that plan as the President did, and the President clearly said there is nothing crazy in this plan, which meant that these are things that could work. The President also, to my second point, claimed that we may have philosophical differences on tax policy and the rest, but he said to me, ``I won.'' So it is, Mr. Speaker, this President's and this Congress's economy. We stand ready and willing to proffer up yet again our plan to address the economic woes of the American families. We have a plan that would be at half the cost of that stimulus bill and produce twice the jobs.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for his remarks, and just say historical facts can be applied and used at will, and that there were plenty of opportunities to point and cast blame and claim credit as there were Republican Congresses and Democratic Presidential administrations and the like. So we could go on for a long time about the past. My point, Mr. Speaker, in posing the question to the gentleman is as a result of the mere fact that promises were made by this administration, goals were set. We were told this stimulus bill, if we were to act in haste, the way this Congress acted, and in fact no one in this body read that bill of 1,100 pages, we were told if we were to pass that bill and it were to be signed into law that unemployment in this country would not exceed 8.5 percent. As we know, as the gentleman knows, in many parts of the country it is well in excess of 10 percent. Nationally, we are on the way to 10 percent. We must and should, Mr. Speaker, in this House do all we can to try and get this economy back on track. It is not that we should repeat the mistakes of the past in that stimulus bill, and we await the administration, the gentleman's prescription as to how to address, as he says, the very real pain that America's families are experiencing.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, we are wondering on this side, having read the news reports, having listened to the gentleman this past Sunday on FOX News about his, in my opinion, refreshing comments about his disappointment as to where we are in this economy and the stimulus that was supposed to have addressed this economy. Again, ``refreshing'' not because the economy is bad, but simply because I think there is a recognition that the ``stimulus'' bill, that it was called, that passed has not delivered on the promise that this administration made about keeping unemployment down. I would ask, since we see unemployment nearing 10 percent, since the promises that were made of the stimulus bill was that we would stave off that unemployment, and it would be no higher than 8\1/2\ percent, I would ask the gentleman if he expects to be able to return to the subject and be able to put in place a plan to really do something to create or foster an environment to create jobs, or should I believe the reports that I am reading that perhaps we are going to have yet another stimulus bill the likes of which we have already seen that has not worked? 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. Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us provides $2.22 billion worth of vital security assistance to the State of Israel, our most dependable and democratic ally in the Middle East. The funding in this bill will help ensure Israel maintains its qualitative military advantage in the region. That means Israel can defend itself against the existential threat posed by Iran and against Iranian terrorist proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, both sworn to Israel's destruction. A strong Israel means a more stable Middle East. A weakened Israel only gives momentum to the radicals in the region determined to sow discord and harm U.S. interests. Joint cooperation with Israel has also yielded tangible benefits to America since Israel is a leader in methods of fighting terrorism and preventing civilian casualties in terrorist attacks. Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt in my mind that Israel is a pillar in the national security interests of the United States, and it is, in my opinion, essential that we provide this assistance to Israel because it is in the best interests of the United States. That's why I support this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.