Eric Cantor

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentlelady. Madam Speaker, colleagues, I don't think there is any of us who would doubt a nation's right to defend its citizens and to defend its population. That's why I rise in support of this resolution. I thank the sponsors, the gentleman from California, the gentlelady from Florida, for bringing this forward. At this time it is very, very important for us in the United States to stand tall in defense of our democratic allies, Israel's right to defend its borders, to defend its people. I stand here in support of Israel because I have been there. I've seen Sderot. One of the most memorable visits to Israel that I've been on, I visited with a family, a family that lived in a town called Gush Katif. It was a town in the southern portion of the Gaza Strip. I visited with them almost 3\1/2\ years ago when it was just after Israel's unilateral pullout of the Gaza Strip. This family had two children, parents--professional parents--who had just gone through the wrenching process of uprooting their family, leaving their home, in hopes of a better life. The parents said to me one of the most difficult jobs was to explain to their children why they needed to leave their life and their home. These parents said they told their children they were going to leave because they needed to be sure that Israel had every chance imaginable for peace so they could leave in peace. I actually cannot imagine what those parents are going through now. Three-and-a-half years later they've settled in the area of Sderot, and life could not be any more frightening for them or their children. When they moved out of the Gaza Strip, they joined the group of citizens of Israel who have to live by the 15-second rule. They have to know, their children have to know, where a safe spot is within 15 seconds of a siren going off. That's the unimaginable fear that they live in day in and day out. Even when these people take vacation and leave Israel, their children, immediately upon arriving at their destination, ask the question, Where is the safe place? Where do I need to run and hide from the rockets? That's the mentality. That's the culture that has bred because of the incessant, tireless firing of rockets by Hamas aimed at civilians. Madam Speaker, that is the issue. Israel has a foe on many of its borders, certainly to the south, that is determined to kill its civilians. I don't think any of us would want any of our population in this country to be subjected to that type of terror, nor would we sit here and allow it. That's why Israel has taken the action that it has. After trying to stop the rockets through third-party negotiations, cease-fires, and even lodging complaints at the United Nations, Israel has taken defensive action. And today, we speak as one body in support of our democratic ally, Israel. We stand up to reaffirm the vibrant relationship that our two countries share, a relationship underpinned by shared values like respect for human life, democracy, and a relationship strengthened by our indispensable strategic interests.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. I would also like to just point out and make a comment and suggestion that we do promote the efficient operation of this House, because we have new Members who have inquired as to why we would be finishing up so early each day and not working more so that maybe we could return to our districts and be with our constituents on a day that perhaps we could save by working more on others. There are 5 legislative weeks scheduled between now and President's Day. I would ask the gentleman if he could lay out the calendar, the legislative calendar for those 5 weeks.

Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, the majority leader. I look forward to continuing this dialogue with him on a weekly basis, and I yield back my time.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. I will say to the gentleman that you have announced a bill, again, limiting the uses of the TARP funds. I know the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts, has also announced a broad outline for his bill and scheduled a hearing. I would ask the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, will the bill be marked up prior to coming to the floor and what sort of rule can we expect?

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. I would like to ask specifically, would anything in Chairman Frank's bill prevent our Members from having a vote to stop the additional $350 billion in bailout funds from being spent?

Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, I'd like to thank him for extending the gratitude he has this week to me. I'm very grateful for that, for his spirit of bipartisanship and his pledge to me to work with us on this side of the aisle. I look forward to building a constructive working relationship with the gentleman. This is our first colloquy together. I look forward to the successive colloquies. And at this time, I yield to my friend from Maryland, the majority leader, for purposes of announcing next week's schedule.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, you don't have to look far to see that families across this country are gripped with a tremendous amount of fear and uncertainty. They fear for their jobs, if they have one. They fear for their future as they see their 401(k)s, their college savings accounts collapse. They fear that their elected leaders don't get it. They fear that this Congress may very well be incapable of change, incapable of producing the kind of results that they want and to get it right. Under existing House rules, when a bill is brought to the floor that includes a tax increase, the minority has a right to offer a motion to strike that increase; and the Republican minority had done that on nearly half a dozen occasions over the past 2 years. With this rule change now, though, House Democrats are trying to push through what we Republicans will no longer have, the ability to say ``no'' to higher taxes. We will not be able to simply strike a tax increase and demand an up or down vote. In fact, the only option we will have would be to replace one tax increase with another. There will be no ability for us to cut taxes to lighten the burden on the middle- class families that are hurting right now. One can see that this rule change makes it a lot easier for the Democrat majority to in fact hide tax increases inside other larger bills. In fact, that is why all of us are sitting here scratching our heads. If the House Democrats feel a tax increase is necessary, then why wouldn't they allow for a full and open debate? Why not let the American people have a say? Why not let the hardworking people of this country hear why Washington is once again looking to take more of their hard earned money? Either way, what is clear, this type of partisan rules change flies in the face of a new era of openness and transparency that President- elect Obama has promised. I take the President-elect at his word. I believe he wants transparency, openness, and debate. I believe he wants Washington to begin to do business differently. I believe he is serious in wanting Congress to work together for the good of all of our constituents. But apparently that word hasn't made its way down to the leadership of the House.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I too rise with a lot of concern over what is about to happen on the floor of this House. Clearly, there are many in this country who are reeling because of job layoffs, insecurity in terms of their economic outlook, insecurity as far as their health care is concerned. We have got a set of problems, I think, unprecedented in this country, at least in our generation. We've got to remain focused on trying to solve problems. And frankly, I think that the bill coming to the floor, otherwise known as the auto bailout, is just not the right way for us to go. I can't think of anything more nonsensical than replacing those in Detroit who have not been able to make a success out of the auto companies and replace them with, frankly, bureaucrats who are subject to the whim of the politicians here in Washington. It just doesn't make sense. If private investors are not convinced of the Big Three restructuring plans, if they don't think they're realistic enough, then why in the world would we ask the taxpayers to step in to provide that kind of assistance? The Big Three restructuring plan and the majority's proposal downright lack accountability. How do we know, what is the guarantee that the taxpayer money, that the restructuring promises will occur? Once the taxpayers enter the game there will be a big incentive for the taxpayers to continue to prop up what could very well be a continuing failed enterprise. That's why we have to lock in the restructuring now. The restructuring shouldn't happen in a matter of months; it should happen in a matter of days or weeks. And as the gentleman from Indiana spoke, there is certainly an ability for us to see this restructuring take place, concessions on the side of management, on labor, on the bondholders. And frankly, we've got a role here in Washington that, if the Big Three are serious in their restructuring efforts, we can provide an alternative, a backstop, a guarantee for debtor-in-possession financing if they were to enter some type of pre-packaged bankruptcy.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I submit the following:

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, may I ask, does the gentlelady have an additional speaker, or is she ready to close?

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would say in all respect to my colleague from New York, I still don't understand how the insertion of this earmark, this insertion of $1.2 billion, has anything whatsoever to do with this bill, has anything whatsoever to do with increasing American energy production, which is the purpose of this bill, which is the majority's stated purpose, that we want to increase American energy production. But, instead, what the gentlelady talks about, again, is not at all responsive to what it was that I was raising. We don't have to have a vote on this issue if the gentlelady would accept unanimous consent to remove the earmark from the bill to go forward. Again, why are we having this earmark, this $1.2 billion earmark? This is exactly what the American public is so upset with Congress about, the fact that we have a bill that is designed to increase American energy production to help us try and wean off of the incredible reliance that we have on foreign oil. Why? The public has to be asking why in the world would we be inserting $1.2 billion in directed funds to one locality. Why in the world would we be doing that? It does not make any sense. The fact that the Ways and Means Committee has certified that this is not an earmark, to me, flies in the face of the open and honest way that the majority has said they would run this House. Again, I have a letter from the chief of staff from the Committee on Joint Tax which says that the New York City Liberty Bonds and the provisions calling for their restructuring is an earmark. Again, I say to the majority, if we are going to be straightforward in our desire to solve the problem of American energy production, this earmark has no place in the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert the letter I quoted from in the Record.

Mr. CANTOR. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. CANTOR. If the gentleman says so. But, again, reclaiming my time, I am not opining and standing up on the substance of what is behind the request for the Liberty Bonds. What I am objecting to is the fact that this, the insertion of this item, is so far beyond the jurisdiction of a bill designed to promote American energy production that it just doesn't even pass the straight- faced test. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I am the last speaker. I have no additional speakers.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, all I would say is the histrionics that we have already seen on the majority side of the aisle indicate the sensitivity of the matter of earmarks. We, I think, all have noticed that the public has an increasing awareness of the way that this body operates, and they have a great dissatisfaction aimed towards this process. That's why we raise this issue. It is just completely unfair. It smacks of a smoke-filled room, behind-closed-doors dealings that is not befitting of this institution. Frankly, it is not what the American people want, nor what they deserve. That is the reason for raising this question surrounding the $1.2 billion that has been requested by what reports have said was Chairman Rangel of the Ways and Means Committee. Again, on their own, liberty bonds should stand a test of this House; but it should not be a provision inserted in a bill that is meant to increase American energy production so that we can bring down gas prices. Mr. Speaker, with that I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against consideration of the resolution because it is in violation of section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution provides that all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 and 10 of rule XXI. This waiver of all points of order includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes the resolution to be in violation of section 426(a).

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, last night, the Committee on Ways and Means certified that the underlying legislation contained no earmarks, and under the rules there is no other way to challenge that certification, which is one of the reasons why I stand before you today. Provisions in H.R. 6899 calling for the restructuring of the New York Liberty Bonds is clearly an earmark. This earmark is worth $1.2 billion and stands to benefit one entity, which is New York City. I have a letter, Mr. Speaker, dated October 30, 2007, from the chief of staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation in which he determines that the New York Liberty Zone tax incentives is a limited tax benefit and therefore an earmark. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, according to House rule XXI, clause 9, and the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, this earmark should have been disclosed along with the Member that requested the same. From all reports, Mr. Speaker, instead of going through the proper procedure, disclosing that this was going to be included in the bill, this provision was air-dropped into the bill over the weekend at the last minute without any ability for any of the Members to know that this was in the bill. Reports say that it is the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Representative Rangel, that has requested this earmark. Yet how are we to know whether Chairman Rangel is the sponsor of this earmark, since there has been no transparency and no notification as required under the rule? Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this earmark produces no energy for American families, and the way that the majority plans to pay for this earmark is by raising taxes on job creation as well as energy production. Mr. Speaker, we are going to hear a lot today during the debate about revenue sharing and the fact that many coastal States, including my State of Virginia, will not be able to share in any of the revenues resulting from energy exploration off our coast. In light of this, in light of the fact that there is no incentive whatsoever to produce energy in this bill, in light of that, when we see that the majority is channeling $1.2 billion to New York City for an earmark for a project that only benefits that locality, I think that we understand now what the intent of the majority is in bringing the bill to the floor in this form. There is zero relationship between increasing American energy production and this earmark, Mr. Speaker, which again underlies my objection and is one of the reasons why I raise this point of order. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas. I also want to thank the gentleman from California, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for their cooperation with me and my office on this bill. As our minority leader said, the scientific community as well as the general public is pretty well steeped in the dangers of smoking. I think all of us can agree it's a legitimate public policy to want to reduce the rate of smoking with our children. This bill, though, in addition to doing some of that, some of the aim behind it is to allow for it to pave the way and in fact to encourage legitimate attempts to make tobacco and tobacco products less harmful. The net result to all of us will be to increase the health outlook for consumers of tobacco and its products. This bill is particularly meaningful to my district, as there are over 6,000 direct jobs related to the tobacco manufacturing. And there has been significant investment in my district and in the area from where I come made towards the research and development on how we make this product less harmful.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I am proud to congratulate Short Pump Middle School, located in Henrico County, VA, for their recognition as a School to Watch by the National Forum to Accelerate Middle Grades Reform. This forum is an alliance of more than 60 educators, researchers, and officers of national associations and foundations dedicated to improving schools for young adolescents across the country. They have identified Short Pump Middle as a high-performing school that excels in many areas of education. Congratulations to the administration, teachers and students on this tremendous honor. National organizations recognize what we in Richmond already know--that Short Pump Middle is first rate. As the parent of 3 Short Pump Middle School alumni, I congratulate the teachers, parents, administrators and students on this outstanding recognition.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. CANTOR. I am in its current form.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership on the issue of the Federal budget and what we should be doing to ensure that we are stewards of the Federal budget just as all the families across this country are expected to be stewards of their own family budget. Now, Madam Speaker, as a proud Virginian, I would like to point to a few of the origins of the earmark discussion that occurred many, many years ago, frankly, shortly after the founding of this country. And that great Virginian Thomas Jefferson, he wrote a letter to James Madison, another great Virginian, dated March 6, 1796, challenging Madison's proposition for improvements to roads used in the system of national mail delivery, and it was directed at the idea that we should be, as Members, actually directing public funds, taxpayer dollars, into our States. President Jefferson wrote, in the context of directing Federal dollars, ``It will be a scene of eternal scramble among the Members, who can get the most money wasted in their State; and they will always get most who are meanest.'' I think this shows that the debate around earmarks is not a new one, and I think also that the impression of then Mr. Jefferson is something that we ought to pay attention to and something that we ought to, frankly, pay heed when we are talking about the challenges that we are facing today in this country. The gentleman from Texas talked about the tremendous lack of confidence that the American public has in this Democrat-controlled Congress. It is stunning to see the public opinion numbers of what the American public thinks about the performance of this Congress. Nothing to be proud of. I believe that that dissatisfaction, frankly, is grounded, first of all, in the inability of this Congress and this majority to solve the problems that real people are facing in their lives each and every day in their communities. All they hear are solutions based on the premise that this government in Washington somehow needs more of their hard- earned dollars. And over and over again, we continue to hear the message, and we know that this town, that this Congress, and this majority is broken. We are not rising to the occasion, fixing the problems facing the American people. And yet we continue to see a steady stream of bills making their way to the floor where we continue to see proposals to raise taxes, to take people's hard-earned money, and then we see those dollars turned around and appropriated into the earmark process. My friend from Texas was very accurate in his quotes, right on point. We have heard over and again Members of the majority leadership, when they were in the minority, when they have become the majority leadership, continue to pledge, ``We pledge to make this the most honest, ethical, and open Congress in history.'' That was from then minority leader Ms. Pelosi in 2006. She then went on to say, ``This is a place where we really need to throw up the shades and pull back the curtains.'' And she said, ``We have to have the fullest possible disclosure, and it has to be on earmarks in appropriations, in authorizations and in taxation. And it has to be across the board, with no escape hatches.'' There was another remark made, ``There has to be transparency. I'd just as soon do away with all earmarks, but that probably isn't realistic.'' Now, again, we need to dedicate ourselves to fixing the problems that this country has to try to address their distrust of this government. And the first thing that we ought to do is be mindful that the many, many earmarks that make their way through this Congress frankly are not out, shone in the light of day as the majority had promised. They are not being held accountable for some of these expenditures that are being made. This is at the crux of the public's distrust of Washington. And again, while we are facing the prospects of $4 and $5 a dollar gas at the pump, while families have real issues and their pocketbook is being pinched, we continue to see the unbelievable, unprecedented torrent of billions of dollars going into special interest projects and into pork that, frankly, most American people don't approve of. It should not be about pork. It should be about paychecks. We should be focusing our attention and we should be focusing the investment of taxpayer dollars towards job creation. We ought to be rewarding those people who invest their dollars and give them back more of their hard- earned money so that we can see more jobs created, because we do know that more jobs, longer lasting jobs and a stronger economy will stem from a strong private sector and a free-market system. And with that, I want to again thank the gentleman from Texas for organizing this Special Order tonight on the very important topic of earmarks. And I yield back.