Eric Cantor

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I would say, if you look at the health care bill that was just passed----

Mr. CANTOR. The health care bill that has just passed, as long as this economy and the players in this economy understand that actions are being taken now to facilitate adopting to a very high tax environment. Now, if the gentleman wants to join us, if he wants to join us in sending the signal to the public that we're not going to continue business as usual, then let's step up, send the signal we're not going to allow taxes to increase any further, and that starts with differing from the President's budget, which calls for $2 trillion of tax hikes over the next 10 years. So I'll say to the gentleman, you can say all day long that you have sat here and provided enough middle class tax relief. It's just not true. The public doesn't understand that. The public sees Washington spending money in unprecedented ways and having to borrow to pay for that. And, ultimately, people understand that it is about raising their taxes, reducing their take-home pay in order to pay for that.

Mr. CANTOR. I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. And I'd say, final closing, Madam Speaker. I'd say that in order to get a handle on spending, just stop. And that is why we shouldn't allow for discussion of hiking taxes. It allows this body, this Federal Government, to have yet even more of the taxpayer dollars to decide how to spend. It's time for us to stop and practice fiscal discipline and get this economy back on track. I yield back.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. I would say to the gentleman that I am heartened to hear about his continued insistence that this body continue to focus on the number one priority of the American people, which is getting this economy going again and getting Americans back to work. Madam Speaker, I would say that most Americans agree that what we ought to be doing is containing and limiting government spending. Many of the programs that the gentleman just pointed out indicate that we, perhaps, are going to keep heading down the same road that we have been in order to try and create an environment for jobs. I would say to the gentleman, although there was some job growth last month, he, himself, I think, would admit that that is just not enough. In fact, if we were to look back at the times of very high employment in prior years, there is probably a need for over 400,000 jobs to be created each month for us, over a period of several years, in order to accommodate for the growth in population as well as to return us to that kind of low unemployment. We have got a lot of work to do, in other words, Madam Speaker, and I know the gentleman knows that. And I think it is fair to say that, in fact, we need to create 434,000 jobs per month for 2 years to make up for the job losses that we have experienced. That is going to take some significant commitment on the part of this Congress to stop the government spending and, frankly, to lower taxes on small business. As the gentleman knows, his constituents just like mine, everyone I talk to knows someone out of work, and it is high time for us to focus on small business, and that is to provide the tax relief for small business and to stop the government programs of spending. And I would hope that the gentleman can commit to trying to change the route that we have taken to finally begin to grow this economy again. With that, Madam Speaker, I would ask the gentleman when----

Mr. CANTOR. I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, I would say back if he is so intent on comparing the budgets and the outlook under the Bush administration to this one, I would say this: If we compare the 2011 budgets of President Bush and President Obama, President Bush's outlook and budget for this year was $2.9 trillion. The 2011 budget of this President is $3.6 trillion. We could simply cut the deficit by 50 percent if we just lived within President Bush's 2011 budget. Madam Speaker, I would say to the gentleman if you cut out all of the emergency spending caused by the recession and just look at discretionary spending, since Congress votes on that every year, President Obama will increase discretionary spending by $319 billion over President Bush's budget for 2011. So, Madam Speaker, I would say, again, we have got to do better. The American people are waiting for this body to step up in a responsible way to stop the spending, which brings on the need for yet even more debt, which ultimately will lead to higher taxes, despite what the gentleman says, that there's been enough tax relief, and get back to a fiscal path that makes sense so we can see small business grow again. I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. I thought that the gentleman, Madam Speaker, had said that there has been so much tax relief under the current administration that it seems that all we need to do is keep spending.

Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I reclaim my time. Madam Speaker, now, see, this is when the politics of attack kick in. For anyone to sit here and say that Republicans don't care about people, that's just not true, and he knows it. It's a definitional question. If the gentleman differs with my characterization it's not a handout, it's a hand up, okay. But what we're talking about was tax relief. It was not a tax cut. If you don't pay taxes, you can't get a tax cut. But what I'd say to the gentleman is this: times are different right now, Madam Speaker. The American public understands the crossroads this country is at, that we are on a path to fiscal ruin. And the gentleman likes to continue to defend the stimulus bill as having been a success. Well, I would say to the Speaker, I'd say, Madam Speaker, to the gentleman, no one, not very many people in America think the stimulus bill was a success at generating jobs, and that's just almost a unanimous fact among most Americans. So if we know that, why would we continue to advocate the same policies? And instead, Madam Speaker, I would say again I hope the gentleman would join us in advocating tax cuts for small businesses so that we can grow jobs in this economy. The gentleman did ask what tax cuts, or what tax hikes, occurred over the last, over this session. And during the gentleman's party's majority rule, we know that there was a $65 billion tax increase on tobacco products. There was an almost $7 billion tax increase under the stimulus law repealing guidance allowing certain payers to claim losses of an acquired corporation. There was another almost $23 billion of surtaxes extended for the Federal unemployment program. And there was also, Madam Speaker, as the gentleman knows, a delay of rules reducing double taxation of American foreign nationals to the tune of almost $6 billion. Those are the tax hikes that have occurred, in addition to the overwhelming billions and billions of dollars inside the health care bill. So, Madam Speaker, it is not accurate for the gentleman to represent that, number one, this Congress has not raised taxes on the middle class. We know differently. And, number two, to sit here and hide behind the notion that there aren't going to be tax increases at the end of this year, and the fact that that realization is not impacting job growth or the lack thereof, that's not being completely accurate, Madam Speaker. And I would say to the gentleman, times are different now. It is time for us to own up to the obligations that we face as a country and work together to try and put this country back onto a growth path. So with that, Madam Speaker----

Mr. CANTOR. I yield.

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 gentlewoman for yielding. I want to salute, first of all, the gentlewoman's leadership on this issue as well as that of the gentleman from California in bringing this to the floor. I would also like to thank the majority leader for bringing this to the floor as well. Mr. Speaker, last year the new administration came to power insisting it had a new approach that would head off the looming threat of a nuclear Iran. By talking to and engaging with the regime in Tehran, the administration said we could convince the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism to abandon its nuclear weapons program. And if that didn't work, America ostensibly would gain the ``moral authority'' to galvanize China, Russia, and the rest of the world to go along with a regime of crippling sanctions against Tehran. Fifteen months and countless missed deadlines later, the administration's strategy has failed. Our lack of resolve has only enabled Iran to accelerate its illegal activities. Let us take this opportunity to remember how high the stakes are. The danger of a nuclear Iran is not hypothetical; it is real. It is a direct and serious threat to America. It is a game changer that would set off a nuclear arms race throughout the Middle East, permanently destabilizing the world's most dangerous region. Top U.S. military officials recently warned Congress that within 1 year Iran will have the fissile material it needs to make a nuclear weapon. Once Iran gets the bomb, the concept of deterrence that underpins U.S. national security is no longer valid. The resounding voice of history reminds us that we ignore the threats of dangerous men and dangerous regimes at our own peril. That's why Congress must rise to the occasion and send the message to the world that the United States will not tolerate a nuclear Iran. It is time for a concerted effort to impose sanctions with real teeth, and that begins here today with the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act. We must block the shipment of all refined petroleum to Iran, and we must cut off all international companies who do business with Iran's Revolutionary Guard from the U.S. financial system. Iran's trading partners must understand that they will no longer conduct business with the regime in Tehran with impunity. Mr. Speaker, these are times of sharp partisan divide in our Nation's capital, but today we have the chance to come together to take a major step forward in the interests of world peace. The time for decisive action to head off the regime in Iran's nuclear program is now.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, today, I am honored to commemorate the life and many achievements of Dr. Dorothy Irene Height. Born in my hometown of Richmond, Virginia on March 24, 1912, Dr. Height became a leader and national champion of the civil rights movement. As one of the only women at the table when contemporaries like Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and others were formulating plans for the civil rights movement, Dr. Height distinguished herself as a civil rights activist and leader. Faced with many obstacles, Dorothy overcame each and every challenge taking on many leadership roles throughout her career, including President of the National Council of Negro Women (NCNW), President of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, and her thirty-three years of service with the Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA). Her wise counsel has been sought by many American leaders such as First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt. She has also earned several awards, including the Presidential Medal of Freedom an I was proud to add my name to a bill in 2003 that was supported unanimously in Congress to award Dr. Height the Congressional Gold Medal. Though we are saddened by Dr. Height's recent passing, it is my firm belief that she will be an inspiration for future generations of Americans and will always be remembered for her hard work, courage, and determination in the fight for equality and opportunity for all.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, all of us in this body, Republicans and Democrats alike, care about Americans' health care, but many of us from both sides of the aisle don't care for this trillion dollar overhaul. And the fact is, the majority of Americans don't care for it either. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, the only bipartisanship we've seen surrounding this overhaul has been in opposition to it, and there's a reason for that. Health care is a very personal issue, and this overhaul will impact every man, woman, and child in this country. It will even affect future generations that have not yet been born. Mr. Speaker, this overhaul will have a huge impact on our parents, our spouses, and our kids. This is something that they'll be paying for for the rest of their lives. And for too long, Mr. Speaker, the majority in this body and the President of the United States have refused to listen to the American people. So, Mr. Speaker, I have a message for those Americans. We hear you. We hear you loud and clear, because we believe this government must stop spending money that it doesn't have, and this trillion dollar overhaul will do the opposite. We believe that this government must stop piling debt upon our children and grandchildren, and this trillion dollar overhaul will do the opposite. We believe that this government must stop raising taxes on small businesses and families, and, Mr. Speaker, this trillion dollar overhaul will do the opposite. We believe that America is the land of innovation and that government must stop crippling job creators and entrepreneurs with oppressive mandates and taxes, and this trillion dollar overhaul will do the opposite. Mr. Speaker, we believe that in America our government must not force those who fundamentally object to abortion to have to pay for it, and this trillion dollar overhaul does the opposite. And we believe in building upon what works in our current health care, Mr. Speaker, so that doctors in America can continue to provide the best care in the world, and this trillion dollar overhaul does the opposite. And, Mr. Speaker, we believe that families and patients should have the freedom and the right to choose the doctors they want, and this trillion dollar overhaul will begin to take that freedom away. Mr. Speaker, if there's one thing that the American people have learned over the past year, it's that we are truly at a critical time in this country. We are at a crossroads. This trillion dollar health care overhaul before us today has caused a lot of fear and uncertainty. It's the latest part of an agenda that is being forced upon the American people that attempts to seize more control over the economy and our lives. The choices we make on deficit spending, higher taxes, energy security, and health care, they're all important. They're important because they will all determine what kind of country we want to be.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, the choice before us is very clear. The choice is whether we want to become a country that is unrecognizable, or one that will fulfill the American Dream so that we remain the most secure and most prosperous, freest country in the history of the world. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues today to listen to the people and vote ``no'' against this legislation.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the majority leader to inform the House of this weekend's schedule.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the gentleman if we are here on Monday, no matter what, is what I heard from the gentleman. Secondly, I'd ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, what time could Members expect votes to begin on Sunday?

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I seek to offer the resolution. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I hereby notify the House of my intention to offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the House. The form of my resolution is as follows: Whereas at least three members of the House Democratic Leadership have endorsed a procedural tactic for the sole purpose of avoiding an up-or-down vote, by the yeas and nays, on the Senate-passed health care bill; Whereas on Tuesday, March 16, 2010 Representative James Clyburn, the House Majority Whip, stated, ``We will deem passed the Senate bill. . .''; Whereas on Tuesday, March 16, The Washington Post reported, ``After laying the groundwork for a decisive vote this week on the Senate's health-care bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested Monday that she might attempt to pass the measure without having members vote on it. Instead, Pelosi (D-Calif.) would rely on a procedural sleight of hand. . .''; Whereas in the same Washington Post article, the Speaker declared, ``. . . I like it because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill.''; Whereas on Tuesday, March 16, McClatchy Newspapers reported Representative John Larson, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, stated, ``Many of our members would prefer not to have voted for the Senate bill.''; Whereas on Tuesday, March 9, U.S. News and World Report reported, ``Pelosi gaffed, telling the local elected officials assembled `that Congress [has] to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it, away from the fog of controversy.' ''; Whereas on Tuesday, March 16, The Washington Post editorialized, ``. . . what is intended as a final sprint threatens to turn into something unseemly and, more important, contrary to Democrats' promises of transparency and time for deliberation. . . . [I]t strikes us as a dodgy way to reform the health-care system. Democrats who vote for the package will be tagged with supporting the Senate bill in any event.'' Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. CANTOR. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The form of the remainder of the resolution is as follows: Whereas on Tuesday, March 16, the Cincinnati Enquirer editorialized, ``This disgusting process, which Democrats brazenly wish to bring to conclusion this week, is being done with little regard for the opinions of a clear majority of Americans who, while they may believe health care reform is necessary, think this particular approach will take our nation down the wrong economic path.''; Whereas bipartisan members of the House and Senate have expressed their opposition to using the Slaughter Solution; Whereas on Wednesday, March 10, Representative Joe Donnelly released the following statement, ``The process over the past few months has been frustrating, including the cutting of unacceptable special deals to assure a few senators' votes.''; Whereas Representative Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania has characterized the exploitation of the Slaughter Solution by Democratic Leadership as ``wrong'' and unpopular among his constituents; Whereas on Friday, March 12, POLITICO reported on a memo sent from Representative Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, to freshman and sophomore House Democrats that stated, ``At this point, we have to just rip the band-aid off. . . Things like reconciliation and what the rules committee does is INSIDE

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, Republicans have come to the floor today because we care about Americans' health care. We just don't care for this bill. But still, the majority seems committed to trying to muscle through a trillion-dollar overhaul that will change health care for every man, woman, and child. Americans have made it very clear. They don't like this bill. They don't want the government in the decision-making of their health care. They want lower costs, and they don't want their government tax dollars going to fund abortion services. So why can't we start over, Madam Speaker? We ask again. There has been a year and a half nearly of debate over this and still more questions than answers. That's why we are hearing reports that the majority will try to ram this through without a direct vote on the Senate bill, Madam Speaker. We should take an up-or-down vote on the Senate bill.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, I would like to ask again, consistent with the President's request that there be an up-or-down vote on the Senate bill itself, can we expect an up-or-down vote on the Senate bill itself?

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, without having to delve back into the debate on what makes this health care bill different than the other times reconciliation was used, I think the American people are those that see the obvious. But I would ask the gentleman, since he says we will be employing regular order here in response to the President's request that there be an up-or-down vote in this House, could the gentleman give us some enlightenment as to the suggestion surrounding something called the ``Slaughter solution'' and whether, in fact, Members can have an up-or- down vote, clean up-or-down vote on this bill, or whether there will be some procedural maneuvering, self-executing rule deeming the Senate bill passed? If he could give us some indication of what we may be able to expect next week.