Eric Cantor

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. CANTOR. I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I would just respond by saying that perhaps because of the expedited nature of the process, given the severity of the crisis, that we would have an opportunity to change that tradition and open up Ways and Means bills. But I accept the gentleman's response, although I may not agree with the outcome. Mr. Speaker, President Obama has asked that 40 percent of the stimulus bill be reserved for tax relief. Republicans agree on the need for fast-acting tax relief for families and small businesses. Unfortunately, it seems the Democrat majority in its proposal includes far less tax relief than what President Obama requested. Some estimates say there is only 10 percent tax cuts. The estimates that I have had that seem reasonable and accurate is that there is only 33 percent of this proposed bill that includes tax cuts and the rest, the 66 percent, is just pure government spending. I'd also note that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported that less than half of the spending on infrastructure in the congressional Democrat proposal will be spent by the end of 2010. That hardly seems stimulative. By contrast, Mr. Speaker, our position would be tax cuts can have an immediate impact. So I would like to ask the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, will Democrats allow amendments to be considered for a vote on the floor that increase the tax relief in this bill, as President Obama has requested? And I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. It's my understanding that the President has said he expects Washington to act differently, that we should and owe it to the public to have an open and transparent process, up-or-down votes in the light of day. That's simply our request, Mr. Speaker, that we be given an opportunity to propose and vote on our tax relief. Obviously, there are differences in what types of tax relief are appropriate in terms of a stimulus bill, and that's being the spirit of my question. Mr. Speaker, the House just voted to stop the administration from spending another $350 billion in bailout funds. However, I would like to clarify the outcome of that vote for the people that elect us. Last week the Senate voted to allow the additional $350 billion to be spent. Therefore, the House and Senate are in disagreement about whether the $350 billion should be spent or not under the TARP program. So I would like to clarify, even though the House voted against the $350 billion, the administration will still be allowed to spend that money. And I would ask the gentleman, is that correct? And I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, the Democrat congressional stimulus bill will add nearly $1 trillion to the Nation's debt. That is roughly $2,700 in additional debt for every man, woman and child in the United States. Republicans are hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that this stimulus bill will be considered openly so as to ensure there is no waste of taxpayer dollars. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the public has not been given an extra day to review the congressional Democratic proposal prior to committee consideration. Further, committees are rushing as we speak to consider their respective portions of the bill, completing markups in a single day. Mr. Speaker, as has been announced, we are going to be hastily considering the bill next week. I would ask the gentleman from Maryland, will all Members and the American people be given 48 hours to review the committee report prior to a vote next week as the House rules dictate?

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 yield.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, President Obama has actively solicited Republican ideas to be included in his stimulus package. I would like to ask the gentleman from Maryland, and I yield to him to respond to the question, will congressional Democrats allow all ideas to be considered as amendments on the House floor without restriction? I yield.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I object and would like the resolution to be read.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman, Madam Speaker. And I would like to bring the gentleman back to a conversation that we had last week regarding the SCHIP bill. Because, frankly, Madam Speaker, I'm a little bit concerned that the Democrat majority is not fulfilling President-elect Obama's calls for bipartisanship. Because I would say to the gentleman, last week you told the House that you were working towards having the SCHIP bill available to us for a full 48 hours before bringing it to the floor; and as the gentleman knows, that did not happen. And I know the American people are not concerned about the process here in this House, but I do know that the public wants their Congress to function openly. This truly is about bipartisanship and transparency, and I believe that the American people deserve both. And as we discussed, Madam Speaker, last week, there are 55 new Members of this House. Those 55 new Members had less than 24 hours to review a 285-page bill that spent $72 billion in American taxpayer dollars, and none of these Members were even allowed to offer an amendment. So I would like to ask the majority leader if he would commit to allowing at least 48 hours for Members and the American public to review bills prior to a vote in the House.

Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader.

Mr. CANTOR. And I do say to the gentleman we appreciate the gesture on the part of the Speaker working with our leader to accommodate this disparity in the ratio on the Energy and Commerce Committee and hopefully in that spirit can continue to work together to try to slim down that disparity on the other committees in which it does exist. Lastly, Madam Speaker, I would like to clarify what action the House will be taking next week on the bailout funds. As the majority leader has stated, he expects the House to vote on a resolution of disapproval. More plainly, for all the people of this country, this is a bill to block the remaining $350 billion in bailout funds from being spent. So to clarify again, Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman to respond to the statement that voting ``yes'' would block the bailout funds and voting ``no'' would allow the bailout funds to continue to be spent; is that correct?

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, I would like to further inquire of the gentleman, along those lines, I know that we now are looking at next week, as you suggest, beginning the legislative process on the consideration of a stimulus bill. And I would note that two of the gentleman's chairmen, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and Mr. Obey from the Appropriations Committee, have released summaries of the House Democratic economic recovery package. However, both gentlemen have not publicly released legislative texts. And I would say to the gentleman it is one thing for us to have a summary of the bill; it is another when we are contemplating spending $825 billion of the taxpayers' money as to when the text of a reported stimulus bill could be made publicly available.

Mr. CANTOR. So I ask a follow-up, Madam Speaker, to the gentleman that the process for consideration of that resolution is yet to be determined?

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. Yes, I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for his remarks. I know that it's not customary for us to count holidays and weekends in those 3 days, but I do thank the gentleman for the intent of his remarks. I would like to turn, Madam Speaker, to the issue of committee ratios. And I do know that there has been some progress made on the Energy and Commerce Committee. Essentially, Madam Speaker, my question to the gentleman is the ratio on the floor of the House is 59/41. And I am, as a member of the Ways and Means Committee, particularly puzzled how there is any justification for a ratio particularly on that committee where it is 63/37. And if he could allow me some insight as to how a ratio could be that different and what the reason for that would be.

Mr. CANTOR. I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for that. Madam Speaker, I would also ask the gentleman if he would commit to allowing both Republicans and Democrats the ability to offer amendments on a regular basis, especially as, in this instance, when a bill comes to the floor without committee consideration.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, I further say that the Appropriations Committee on the Republican side of the aisle are extremely concerned, and they should be, that they will not be given the customary 3 days to review the text prior to any markup, and this is, after all, the committee rule. Our members are being told that today, Friday, and next Tuesday will count as the 3 days required under the committee rules; however, as we all know, on Tuesday almost no one will be allowed in the building due to the inauguration. So, Madam Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, in his capacity as the leader and a former appropriator, can he ensure us and ensure the members of the Appropriations Committee that their markup will not begin before next Thursday?

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to underscore that all of us, Republicans and Democrats alike, desire to ensure that all children of low-income working families have access to high-quality, affordable health care. But at this time in our economy when deficits threaten to climb to $1.6 trillion, without Republican input or without any debate, the majority has rushed a bill to the floor that substantially expands the reach of this program beyond its original intended purpose. All the while, a substantial portion of the existing target population has never been reached. It is with much disappointment that I stand in opposition to this bill today, because it could have had significant bipartisan support had the majority opened the process to our substantive ideas. Before our ideas and solutions were shut out at the Rules Committee, we sent President-elect Obama and Speaker Pelosi a letter which outlined four central issues that we had hoped would be addressed. First: We believe that the SCHIP bill should follow the original intent of the law. That is to cover children in low-income working families. Second: We Republicans believe that expanding SCHIP should not shift children away from private health insurance options into government-run programs that are funded exclusively by the taxpayers. Instead, we should be providing families who are currently uninsured with more affordable options to better meet their needs, not a one-size-fits-all government solution. Third: We Republicans believe that the legislation should include meaningful provisions to prevent fraudulent activity by those who seek to illegally gain access to this program. Finally, Madam Speaker, when Congress reauthorizes the program, we must do so responsibly. The budget gimmicks included in this bill suggest that the majority is not seriously trying to comply with PAYGO. This bill will only put the States and the Federal Government into further debt. I don't think there is any question that many in this House want to do the right thing. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, I feel this bill doesn't quite reach this mark.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for that. I would ask the gentleman, Madam Speaker, regarding the SCHIP bill, does the Energy and Commerce Committee or the Ways and Means Committee plan on holding a hearing or markup on that bill?

Mr. CANTOR. I would ask, Madam Speaker, along those lines, if nothing else, the budget window has changed, as the gentleman recognized, and the costs will likely be more substantial. We do have, obviously, 55 new Members of this Congress that have not had a chance to vote on this bill or even be a part of the discussion, may not have any experience on this issue. While we have very little time to review a multibillion dollar authorization, I would ask the gentleman if the bill is coming to the floor in the form of a suspension. He noted, Madam Speaker, that it was a bipartisan vote. It was maybe 40 Members on our side. I think the majority of those Members on our side support the extension of the existing SCHIP program. I was wondering, again, if the bill is coming to the floor as a suspension, or will we have an opportunity to offer our amendments and suggestions under a rule?

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for that. The Republicans under the leadership of our leader, John Boehner, will be sending a letter later today outlining our ideas for improving the SCHIP program. I am hopeful that under the rule that we will have the ability to have those ideas considered on the House floor, just as President-elect Obama has advised us to proceed when the gentleman and I and several others met with him earlier this week. Madam Speaker, I would now like just to make one additional inquiry to the gentleman that three suspensions were considered on Wednesday. I would say to the gentleman votes were over by 1 p.m. Yesterday we counted electoral ballots for the historical election of Barack Obama. We were finished by 2 p.m. Since no legislative business was conducted and no votes were taken after that, can we expect this to be the manner in which the floor will be scheduled each week?