Eric Cantor

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman that the resolution provides for the capping of spending levels at '08 levels. The gentleman also knows that the Speaker has been very consistent in his statements, saying that we are going to have an open rule process when it comes to spending bills. In fact, that is what we said during the last campaign season in the Pledge to America. So, in working with that commitment as well as the language of this resolution, the budget chairman, Mr. Ryan, will be instructed to enter into the Record a cap of spending levels for the remainder of the fiscal year to be placed at 2008 levels.

Mr. CANTOR. I would say to the gentleman I disagree with that characterization of the language ``or less,'' and would just say that, again, the Speaker is committed to an open process on spending bills. I assume that we will see coming to the floor every attempt and effort to try and maintain some sense that this Congress is going to be a cut- and-grow Congress and that we are about trying to find savings everywhere we can so that we can get this country back onto a trajectory of fiscal sustainability. So I say to the gentleman, no, this is not something that we intend to be meaningless, that we are serious. The cap is consistent with our commitment to the people of this country that the levels of spending for the remainder of the fiscal year will not exceed 2008. It is our hope that we can continue to find additional savings so that, yes, we could even find ourselves below '08 levels; but the cap is 2008 levels.

Mr. CANTOR. I would say to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that the vote on the debt limit comes within the context of our demonstrating a commitment to cut spending, to effect reforms. And the President as well as the gentleman's side here in this House have said both that they would like to see and join us in cutting spending. This debt-limit vote comes in the context of all that we are going to be able to do over the next several months. And we've got to be demonstrating that or frankly the public will not want us to accept any notion that we're going to continue business as usual unless we've demonstrated that things are changing. That's why I continue to say to the gentleman that we will not accept an increase in the debt limit without serious spending cuts and reforms.

Mr. CANTOR. The budget directive is 2008 levels or less. As the gentleman well knows, the intention is to allow the Appropriations Committee to do its work, to report a resolution to the floor. The body will work its will according to the insistence of the majority and the Speaker that we have an open process on spending bills. It is our hope that we can work to achieve even greater savings for the taxpayers of this country.

Mr. CANTOR. To be clear, once the House adopts the resolution next week, the resolution will then instruct Chairman Ryan to cap non- security discretionary spending for the remainder of fiscal year 2011 at fiscal year 2008 levels. That is the purpose of our adopting the resolution, acting as the House as a whole, instructing Chairman Ryan to cap non-security discretionary spending at 2008 levels for the remainder of this fiscal year. Again, Mr. Speaker, I'd say to the gentleman, I know he shares with me the realization that people across this country--families, businesses--are having to face some tough choices. We started this Congress, I think, together, committed to demonstrating that we are willing to make those tough choices--thus, the resolution for next week.

Mr. CANTOR. First of all, I thank the gentleman for his kind statements regarding the expressions of grief and support that I think all Members of this body have expressed to Gabby Giffords, her family, and her staff. Our thoughts and prayers remain with all of them, and certainly to the victims and their families. And certainly they all know that we are thinking of them. Mr. Speaker, as far as the schedule is concerned, if you will recall, the commitment on our schedule was the finishing time would be 3 p.m. on the last day we are here. We specifically had indicated that January is going to be a little different and an exception due to the organizing processes, State of the Union, et cetera. The expectation is to begin that in February, as was originally expressed; although, we do intend to try to be as expeditious as possible on Wednesday. The exact timing of our departure and finishing up depends on the actual rule coming from the Rules Committee, including the amendment debate and the structure for the Presidential election fund bill. We expect an announcement by the Rules Committee chairman later today on that.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate and noon for legislative business. The House will recess no later than 5 p.m. to allow a security sweep of the House Chamber prior to the President's State of the Union address. The House will meet again at approximately 8:35 p.m. in a joint session with the Senate for the purpose of receiving an address from the President of the United States. On Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. During the week, the House will consider at least one bill under suspension of the rules, which will be announced by close of business tomorrow. In addition, we will consider H. Res. 38, a resolution reducing non-security spending to fiscal year 2008 levels or Less, and a bill of the public's choosing--via the YouCut program--to reduce Federal spending and the deficit by terminating taxpayer financing of Presidential election campaigns and party conventions; saving taxpayers $520 million in mandatory spending according to CBO's estimate last year.

Mr. CANTOR. The gentleman understands, as the Rules Committee chairman presides over the Rules Committee and entertains the submission of amendments. As to exactly, I can't answer that right now, and that will be determined by the Rules Committee.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, 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.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 400th anniversary of Henrico County, Virginia. The Citie of Henricus was established by Sir Thomas Dale in September 1611 and was named in honor of Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales. Later in 1634, Henrico was designated as one of Virginia's first eight counties and at the time it included the counties of Albemarle, Amherst, Appomattox, Buckingham, Chesterfield, Cumberland, Fluvanna, Goochland, Nelson and Powhatan and the cities of Charlottesville, Colonial Heights and Richmond. Henrico County was home to pioneer African-American educator and humanitarian Virginia Randolph, who founded the first public school vocational education program in the nation. She was born to former slaves and opened the Old Mountain Road School in 1892. The Virginia E. Randolph Community High School and the Virginia Randolph Special Education Center School, named in honor of Virginia Randolph, are located in Henrico County. Today Henrico County is situated in Central Virginia and includes a third of the Richmond metropolitan area. Business in Henrico continues to thrive while local attractions and historical sites attract residents and visitors to the county. In 1927, Henrico County was honored when Charles A. Lindbergh landed the Spirit of St. Louis at the grand opening of Byrd Field. This airport, now known as the Richmond International Airport, serves more than 3.5 million travelers annually. The Richmond International Raceway, RIR, America's Premier Short Track, is also located in Henrico. Each year RIR hosts both the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series and NASCAR Nationwide Series. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating the citizens of Henrico as they celebrate the county's anniversary and wishing them the best for their continued growth and success.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Buerkle).

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, we have five remaining speakers.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Republican Conference, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the majority whip, the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).

Mr. CANTOR. I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Speaker, America did not become great by accident. We are a great country because we continue to strive toward the protection and expansion of individual liberties in a way that people cannot find anywhere else in the world. Our system of free enterprise inspires people to pursue opportunity, to take responsibility for their lives, and to achieve success. Yet for the past 2 years, Congress and the administration have pushed an agenda that moves America in the opposite direction by eroding individual freedoms. It is part of a philosophy premised upon government siphoning more money, control, and power out of the private sector. And the health care bill we seek to repeal today is the tip of the spear. Mr. Speaker, let's make something clear: Both parties care deeply about health care. Likewise, Republicans have rejected the status quo. We simply disagree with our counterparts on the other side of the aisle that excessive government regulation and sweeping mandates on individuals and businesses are the right way to go about effecting the reforms that Americans want. The construct of this bill is fundamentally unworkable. Instead of preserving the doctor-patient relationship, this legislation we seek to repeal is rooted in having Federal bureaucrats come between patients and their doctors, limiting choices. If you go back to the health care debate last Congress, the President, then-Speaker Pelosi, and then-Leader Reid often spoke of two goals: one, we should strive to lower costs; and, two, if Americans liked the health insurance coverage they had, they should be able to keep it. Mr. Speaker, we believe in the aftermath of this bill's passage these goals have not and cannot be met. Therefore, doesn't it stand to reason that we must repeal this bill and begin an honest debate about a better way forward? Of all the most disingenuous myths in this town, perhaps the biggest is the notion that repealing the health care bill will increase the deficit. Let's remember here, we are adding an open-ended entitlement. The new law is riddled with budget gimmicks that double- count savings, offset 6 years of benefits with 10 years of tax increases, and rely on cuts to Medicare and tax increases to fund a new entitlement. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office works hard to provide accurate accounting; but it is only able to score the legislation put in front of them, even if it includes budget gimmicks and fiscal shell games designed to hide its true cost. The reality is this trillion- dollar new government entitlement will lead to a one-size-fits-all cure and put our country and our States on a path to bankruptcy. At a time when we need to do everything in our power to encourage job creation, the health care bill hangs around the necks of businesses and serves as a barrier to job creation. Mr. Speaker, if we want to deliver real results, the right way to go about health care reform is to lower costs and improve access. That is why, after the House passes this repeal of ObamaCare, we will begin a two-step process of: first, conducting oversight of the law and the impact it has had on our economy and our health care system; and, two, beginning work on a new vision to improve health care without bankrupting our country and taking away the health care that most Americans want and like. This majority is dedicated to achieving results for the American people. As we have said before, Mr. Speaker, we are a cut-and-grow Congress. We will cut spending and job-destroying regulation and grow private-sector jobs and the economy. Repealing last year's health care law is a critical step. Mr. Speaker, we can do better, we will do better, and I urge my colleagues to support repeal.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Mr. CANTOR. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in beginning to respond to the minority's motion to recommit, all I can say is this is an attempt to derail the repeal of the ObamaCare bill--without question. The positing of this motion to recommit and the substance of that recommit is also inexplicable if one could be deemed to be offering a legitimate policy proposal. The notion that somehow the repeal position that the majority has taken and that, frankly, the majority of the American people desire is somehow connected with denying a better way forward, again, is inexplicable. I think, again, Mr. Speaker, I would say it is not a serious attempt to add towards how we get to a better way in health care. Now, the question before this body is simple: Do you support the new health care law? Yes or no. The motion to recommit is simply an effort to protect ObamaCare from being repealed, period. If you think the new health care law will improve how health care is delivered in the U.S., then support the motion to recommit. But if you believe, as most Americans do, that the new health care law will put America on the wrong path--that the open-ended entitlement design of the new law will contribute to putting us on a path to bankruptcy, that the policies in the law will deny patients access to the care that they want and need, if you believe that the new law will increase health care costs, not lower them, and that the new law is generating great uncertainty for our businesses, is hurting our economy and that the new law is unconstitutional--then vote against the motion to recommit. Voting against the motion to recommit is a vote to repeal the health care law, and I urge its defeat. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CANTOR. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the secretary of the Republican Conference, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).