Eric Cantor

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. He stated this sort of series of events that we anticipate, and we look to making sure that we're doing everything to facilitate that and have the budget on the floor, hopefully, by the end of this month.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and would say that the gentleman has been a huge supporter and participant in the pilgrimage to Alabama marking that event, that day in history, and I look forward to his participation in the process of making sure that the House Historian has the necessary information to accurately reflect the House's role, the Members of the House's role, and certainly the gentleman's role in the pilgrimage to Alabama celebrating that event. Frankly, as he indicates, Mr. Speaker, a reminder to us all that this country didn't always get it right, but we are continuing to work together to make sure that we are that land of equal rights and opportunities for all.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker. I think the gentleman knows that both his staff and mine are in constant communication on this bill as late as I think last night and have met to discuss the options as to how we proceed forward. Again, we are very mindful of the expiration, or looming expiration, or need for, if you will, of the passage of this bill and look forward to continuing to work with him and his team to make sure that we get the resolution right and are able to proceed.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Texas. Madam Speaker, our government was founded on a promise. This promise was built on a trust between the people and their elected officials. We all have a duty to honor the trust of the American people and to work faithfully on their behalf. Madam Speaker, it is unacceptable for anyone, any elected official or their staff, to profit from information that is not available to the public. People in this country have a right to know and trust that officials at all levels of government are living under the same rules that they are. If there is even the slightest appearance of impropriety, we ought to go ahead and prevent that from taking place. It is incumbent upon each of us to start restoring the trust between the people and their elected representatives. That's what the STOCK Act is all about. Madam Speaker, Members from both sides of the aisle have worked hard on this issue. I would especially like to express my appreciation to Representatives Tim Walz and Louise Slaughter for their years of work on this effort. Congressman Walz has been a leader on the STOCK Act since he took office at the start of the 110th Congress, and I particularly want to recognize his willingness to reach across the aisle and keep the lines of communication open as we worked to make clear that elected officials abide by the same rules as the American people. This bill we are bringing to the floor today puts in place measures that both strengthen and expand the Senate's work on the STOCK Act, as well as removes provisions that would have made the bill unworkable or raised far more questions than they would have answered. We expanded the bill to ensure that executive branch officials and their employees are subject to the same reporting and disclosure requirements as those in Congress. We must all live under the same rules. We also included a provision, championed by Representative Robert Dold, to ensure that Members of Congress who are convicted of a crime do not receive a taxpayer-funded pension after the fact. And finally, Madam Speaker, we added a provision to prohibit Members of Congress, executive branch officials, and their staffs from receiving special access to initial public offerings due to their positions. Madam Speaker, we intend to act quickly to send the President a strengthened, workable bill that delivers on our promise to uphold the trust of the American people. And I urge all my colleagues to support the STOCK Act.

Mr. CANTOR. Sure. I would respond to the gentleman, I think that is a provision that raises an awful lot of questions. I think there is a lot of discussion and debate about who and what would qualify and fall under the suggested language that came from the Senate. And that is why, in the STOCK Act, we are calling for a study of that issue, to ensure that the integrity of this process is maintained. But I would remind the gentleman, the thrust of this bill is about making sure that none of us, in elected office or those in the executive branch, are able to profit from nonpublic information. The political intelligence piece is outside of this body, and we are talking about us and the perception that has gathered around our conduct.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman just heard what I said: we can create jobs if we open up the ability for more energy exploration. We can create jobs if we provide some certainty to the industries and the State agencies--as well as the Federal agencies--that are involved in planning and charting the course for infrastructure maintenance, repair and expansion in this country. Growth requires infrastructure that is at top notch, and we know we're a far cry from that in this country. So the gentleman understands my point: growth comes from better infrastructure; growth comes from expanding the ability to explore our natural resources off our coast, something that, unfortunately, most Members on his side of the aisle have not been supportive of in terms of charting a more certain and responsible energy future. Does the gentleman have any more scheduling questions?

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman knows where I'm going on that last comment, because I will just point out the fact that, when he was the majority leader, that bill, the STOCK Act, had sat dormant, and he refused as the majority leader to pick up the bill and bring it to the floor of the House. Given the vote that we just saw, I think that there was probably legitimate work to improve and strengthen the bill, which indicated and was reflected in the vote that we just had on the STOCK Act. As for the gentleman's suggestion that somehow I'm confusing this bill with others and his reference to the Affordable Care Act, the public doesn't like that bill; right? It doesn't. I'm thinking that perhaps the gentleman is confusing this bill with one that came up during his term as majority leader when the cap-and-trade bill was filed at 2 a.m. and then we were asked to vote on it at 10 o'clock the next morning. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman knows that we have provided for over a week's time and then some for Members to take a look at the full version and to give Members time to prepare their amendments until next Monday so that we can have a full and robust debate on this bill.

Mr. CANTOR. I believe that what is needed, Mr. Speaker, is some certainty so that the agencies at the State level can operate with their plans going forward for infrastructure needs. I believe that the private sector that is heavily involved with the infrastructure industry can know how to plan so they can make investments necessary so that we can see the maintenance, repair, and expansion of our infrastructure system in this country. We're about trying to say let's grow. Let's grow. Let's try and work together so we can grow this economy. The economy is dependent upon an infrastructure future that is certain. The gentleman also knows that we have in the bill a pay-for that is derived from the expansion of the ability to explore in the deep ocean off our coasts because it's an energy resource that we should be utilizing. That, as well, holds a potential for thousands of new jobs. So, Mr. Speaker, we are all about job creation. And I hope that the gentleman can join us in what is titled the American Energy Infrastructure Jobs Act.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I am just marveling at the fact that I don't understand what the gentleman is seeing here. The Washington Post has just done extensive coverage and a story on that transportation bill and the 5,000-plus earmarks that were involved in the bill that he is bragging about. We're in a new day here. We're shining the light of day. We're saying no more earmarks. We're not doing things the way we used to do them, and that is exactly what the people want. They want a reformed Congress that belongs to them, that works for them, and not the other way around. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that I look forward to his amendments that he submits for Monday to be considered by the Rules Committee so that we can proceed, as we have on so many bills, in an open debate on the floor of this House, unlike we ever experienced in majorities past. I would say to the gentleman, let's really try and agree. We have to reform this system. We are standing up for reform, whether it be no more earmarks, whether it be continued positing of positions online so that Members have enough time to review, with an open announcement of how long the amendment deadline is, with a continued pattern of allowing for debate on amendments on both sides of the floor. We're trying to change this institution so it can actually live up to what the people are expecting and for us to be able to abide by their trust.

Mr. CANTOR. I'd say to the gentleman, the Rules Committee has announced that there is an amendment deadline for Members to get their amendments in by Monday morning, and it will then proceed in the normal process to vote on a rule to govern the debate on the American Energy Infrastructure Jobs Act.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman, the Democratic whip, for yielding. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at 1 p.m. in pro forma session. No votes are expected. On Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and noon for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m. Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a few bills under suspension of the rules, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. In addition, the House will consider H.R. 7, the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act of 2012. The House may also consider legislation relating to H.R. 3630, the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act.

Mr. CANTOR. Again, the gentleman, if he wants to play gotcha----

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I would ask in response to that, does he not agree that there is a difference between the nature of the tax relief in the payroll tax and the nature of existing tax rates on the marginal level as well as capital gains? And along those lines, would he not, then, be advocating a position that would say, it's okay to raid the Social Security trust fund if you're not going to pay for the extension of the payroll tax holiday?

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I respond to the gentleman, I was not in seven different directions. It's very simple. I asked the gentleman: Are you okay with raiding the Social Security trust fund? Because your response to my question indicated to me that it's fine for you and your side to say: Let's just raid the Social Security trust fund, extend the payroll tax holiday without any pay-fors; is that okay?

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I would just say, really it's not productive to engage in politics and division. We ought to be about multiplication here. We ought to be about growing the economy. We ought not be talking in the way that the gentleman suggests, that somehow we Republicans prefer one group of people over another. That's not true. We're here fighting for the hardworking taxpayers. I just said, Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman, that we, as Republicans in this House, do not support taxes going up on anybody. We believe that Washington spends too much money. We don't believe you ought to tax anybody, especially the job creators, the small businessmen and women who we're relying on to create jobs and get this economy back to where it needs to be, in a growth mode. So the gentleman knows very well my position, and it is the position of our conference. We do not want to see taxes going up on hardworking taxpayers. I said it before, and I will say it again: We hope that the conferees can produce something for us to vote on, but we are not in any way, shape, or form advocating for taxes to go up on hardworking people. No. We are for making sure that doesn't happen. So, Mr. Speaker, I don't know how many times I can say that to underscore our commitment.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, again, the question has to do with the gentleman and his side's and the President's insistence that somehow the math requires us to raise taxes on small businessmen and women. We don't believe that. We don't believe that we ought to let tax rates go up and create a tax hike on the small business people of this country because, number one, that exacerbates the challenge that we're already dealing with in trying to get this economy growing. And number two, it will put more money into the hands of Washington to begin spending that money without paying down the debt. The gentleman knows very well our commitment to making sure we get the fiscal house in order. He knows very well that we believe you've got to fix the problem and not go in and ask the small businessmen and women to pay more taxes to dig a hole deeper. We believe you ought to fix the problem, stop taking small business money away from the men and women who make it, and let them continue to put it back into their enterprises and create jobs. That's what we're trying to do. And I look forward to working with the gentleman to make sure we accomplish that end.

Mr. CANTOR. If I could, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, does he think that the payroll tax holiday extension for the year needs to be paid for?

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I'd say to the gentleman, he has answered the same question in two different ways. And he's also gone off not in seven different directions but nine or ten when he starts talking about the former President George Bush. George Bush has nothing to do with this debate, has nothing to do with the issue before it. What I'm asking, Mr. Speaker, is, number one: Does he not agree that if we pay for the extension of the Federal tax holiday, we are making sure that we attempt to address the raid on the Social Security trust fund? And is that not different than talking about marginal rates on small business men and women? Is that not different than talking about keeping the capital gain rates the same on investors and entrepreneurs in America? We need to put investment capital back into the economy, the private economy. And so my point was not seven different directions, my point is just that. Again, I would say to the gentleman that it bothers me to hear that the gentleman just wants to rely on an IOU. The public is tired of saying, yes, we'll owe it. We'll owe it. We'll pay it later. What we're saying is let's make sure that we don't dig the hole any deeper. Let's make sure we don't raid the Social Security trust fund. That's why we are saying let's pay for it. But again, to the gentleman's point about trying to expedite things so we can have a result out of the conference committee, there has been no activity, no activity on the part of the Senate. They're not serious. They're not serious on wanting to address the issue--at least, they've not been thus far--and we're running out of time. So again, I guess the gentleman's solution is go ahead and raid the Social Security trust fund and let's extend the payroll tax holiday. And if that's the gentleman's position, then we know the position I would imagine of the minority on this position.

Mr. CANTOR. I will say to the gentleman, as I said before and as reflected by the vote that just occurred on the motion to instruct conferees, we, too, desire a resolution of this issue next week. I think the gentleman knows that we've been on this floor before in the same discussion where it is imperative for us to send a signal to the hardworking taxpayers of this country that they're not going to have their taxes go up. So it is my hope that we're going to see some productivity out of the conference committee. I think the gentleman knows my position as to why there has been no productivity. Frankly, last week, I urged the gentleman to point his ire to the other side of the Capitol because it is that side of the Capitol and Leader Reid who have been unwilling to come forward with a resolution to this issue. As the gentleman knows, the House has taken its position. We believe we ought to extend the payroll tax holiday for a year and do so in a responsible manner so as not to raid the Social Security trust fund. But there's been no willingness on the part of Leader Reid and his conferees to even offer a suggestion as to how to resolve this impasse. So, again, I say to the gentleman, we are committed to making sure taxes don't go up on hardworking people in these economic times.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, maybe the gentleman is confusing this majority with the one he was the leader in, because we have now seen all the committees, Transportation and Infrastructure, Natural Resources, Ways and Means, Oversight and Government Reform, Energy and Commerce, mark up and consider amendments from both sides. H.R. 7, in its entirety, was posted at approximately noon yesterday, February 8. At noon yesterday, it was on line for everyone to see. The vote is scheduled for next Friday, February 17. Given the process of all the committees and all of the markups and the willingness to entertain amendments from both sides and now posting yesterday, Wednesday, when the vote is next Friday, I think that we are providing and living up to the commitment we've made, that we're going to have a much more open process, that the public is going to be able to enjoy its right to know what we're doing, and Members and their staffs, as well, can do what they need to do to prepare for their amendments and their votes on this bill.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I'll just wrap it up by saying I don't think there was anybody, any working American that did not benefit from the '01-'03 tax relief. So again, the gentleman's attempt to divide this country, saying that some benefit from this and others benefited from that, it's not the way that I think most Americans look at it. We're all in this together, okay. So again, we're trying to make sure that taxes don't go up on anybody. We're trying to do it responsibly. And the gentleman does, and acknowledges, that the payroll tax holiday involves a tax that is dedicated to the viability of the Social Security trust fund. And the gentleman knows that if we pass that bill because of his insistence and the insistence of the leader on the Democratic side of the aisle in the Senate, the majority leader in the Senate, that if we have to go ahead and just do it unpaid for, then we have created more of a problem and raided the Social Security trust fund. So again, if that's the choice, if the gentleman is saying that his side is not going to support an extension of the Federal tax holiday unless it's unpaid for, then I guess we know where we stand, and the American people know where we stand, because they'll force a raid on the Social Security trust fund.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 1 p.m. on Monday, February 13, 2012.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Right. So, again, the gentleman is correct in saying there is bipartisan support for these bills. The President supports them. Where's the problem? It's across the hallway here, and if we could actually get the majority there to help move these bills, we could make some progress.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, first of all, we expect to vote on the bill the week of the 13th. I think there will be adequate time for Members to review the bill and the text, to the gentleman's concern about Mr. Rahall's inquiry last night in the committee. That is exactly why we are allowing for the time, so that Members can review such a big bill, a bill that means so many jobs to so many Americans. I hope that the gentleman will be true to his nature, which is bipartisan, and to work with us, because this American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act is just that; it's a jobs bill. It is a bill that can provide some certainty to our contractors, some certainty to our communities so that we can start to grow again and see jobs proliferate. But I find it ironic that the gentleman complains about paying for it, because he talks about our wanting to open up our resources, our resources offshore, our resources in ANWR as, number one, an attempt to allow America to develop finally a national energy policy, but to also promote jobs. The gentleman knows, as I do, the energy sector provides an awful lot of jobs in plenty parts of this country, and can do a lot more, and is willing. Private capital, willing to deploy to create jobs. But I find it also ironic, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman complains that there's no bipartisanship because somehow we're not working with the administration. Well, the administration's been absent on all of this. They're not interested in working with us to create a product where we can see jobs created. As you can see, the Secretary sits in his office and opines and attacks the bill, saying it is all the negative things that he said. Now, that's not a way to collaborate and work together. And the gentleman knows that as well. The gentleman knows that that is certainly not how things have worked in this town if you want to produce a result. So the gentleman can claim the mantle of wanting to work together and that the administration is being trampled by some action here. He knows good and well, Mr. Speaker, that this administration has been absent in so many of the discussions on so many important issues. And the fact that we differ on policy, yes. But I think the gentleman also knows that reasonable people can disagree, but that doesn't mean that we can't work together to find some things that we agree on. Certainly, we agree on jobs. The gentleman says we agree on small business. I'm looking for his support of that small business tax credit bill. And we agree on infrastructure spending being an important part of our economy. So I'm looking forward to the next week or so, as the bill works its way to the floor, to hopefully garner his support.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon on Monday next for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.