Eric Cantor

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. ``The seats of the Senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year, of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year, and of the third class at the expiration of the sixth year, so that one-third may be chosen every second year.''

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman of our Budget Committee. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge support for the measures before us to replace the sequester and reduce the deficit and to extend permanent tax relief for the middle class and hundreds of thousands of small business people. For the past weeks and months, as people have been looking for jobs and budgeting for their expenses, we've been working to keep taxes from going up and offering commonsense spending reforms. The Spending Reduction Act at issue today reduces our deficit and protects our national security by replacing indiscriminate cuts that are neither strategic nor balanced. Mr. Speaker, we all agree that our current spending path is unsustainable and poses a real threat to the economy, to job creation, and to our ability to remain competitive in the global economy. We must address the underlying issue that faces this country, which is the mounting deficit and load of debt that we are going to leave to this generation and the next. But the President has been unwilling to consider serious spending cuts or offer a serious and balanced plan to avoid the fiscal cliff. The risks of unchecked spending are grave. The consequences of our debt crisis will be felt by every student looking for a job that matches their skills after graduation, by every retiree counting on Social Security and Medicare, and by every small business owner looking to expand and hire. We have passed bills and put forward reforms that would save programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid from certain and predictable failure, yet we cannot find cooperation, Mr. Speaker, from the White House or the other side of the aisle to help solve these problems. It is unfortunate that we find ourselves in this place just 11 days from the new year. For months, we have been ready and willing to work with the President to prevent the fiscal cliff from impacting small businesses and hardworking families. The math shows that the President's push to hike taxes won't reduce the deficit, and, left unchecked, his government spending will bankrupt our future. Our plan will protect 740,000 additional small businesses that would otherwise be hit by the tax hike the President is proposing. We don't believe taxes should go up on anybody, but if we can prevent taxes from going up on as many people as possible, on 99.81 percent of American families and small businesses, we must and need to do so. Americans are looking for jobs, small businesses are deciding whether they should hire or invest in growing, and many Americans are struggling to make ends meet. We are all committed to creating an economy where everyone has an opportunity to succeed. House Republicans are offering a plan today similar to one that received 53 Democratic votes in the U.S. Senate only 2 years ago, and the Spending Reduction Act is a serious start toward reducing our deficit and protecting our national security. Absent a balanced offer from the President, this is our Nation's best option, and Senate Democrats should take up both of these measures immediately. The President has a choice, Mr. Speaker. He can support these measures or be responsible for reckless spending and the largest tax hike in American history.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to remember and honor the life of Bishop Walter F. Sullivan, whose recent death saddens the many people whose lives he touched throughout his time as bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Richmond. Bishop Sullivan served in churches throughout Virginia since he was ordained in 1953. As the longest-serving bishop in the Richmond diocese's 192-year history, he made a lasting impact in and outside of the Catholic Church. Bishop Sullivan was an advocate for the underprivileged and welcomed people of all faiths with open arms. During his time as bishop, the diocese established various new parishes, advisory committees for the youth, women, and minorities, homes for the elderly, and retreat centers. Bishop Sullivan also commissioned the first public Holocaust memorial in Virginia, ``Rachel Weeping for Her Children,'' which celebrated its 25th anniversary in April. Acts like this made Bishop Sullivan a hero and champion to many. He spent his life committed to helping others, and he will be greatly missed. Mr. Speaker, though we mourn the death of Bishop Walter Sullivan, we come together to pay tribute to and honor the life and work of such an important figure in our history.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jay Pierson, who has dedicated the past 34 years to this legislative body and our Nation. As a floor assistant, Jay's knowledge of the House rules and procedure, and the guidance he provides Members and staff have allowed this institution to run smoothly in service to the American people. As a dedicated, revered, and unwavering presence on House floor, Jay himself has become an institution. Members and staff on both sides of the aisle call Jay their friend for his assistance and his incredible kindness. Known not only for his expertise on House rules and procedure, Jay is a historian of the House and holds a doctorate in English. None may know Jay better than the staff of the Library of Congress from whom he is constantly borrowing and returning books. Mr. Speaker, I know I am joined by current and former members of Congress and staff when I say that we all feel honored to have worked with Jay. I thank Jay very much for his service and I wish he, his wife JoAnn, and his sons Joel and Jeff the best as they enjoy more time together.

Mr. CANTOR

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 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, the House will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning-hour and noon for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. Members are advised that, due to the ongoing negotiations regarding the fiscal cliff, a weekend session is possible and, therefore, last votes for the week are not yet known. Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of bills under suspension of the rules, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business Friday. Additionally, we expect to consider a conference report for the National Defense Authorization Act for the Fiscal Year 2013, and a number of other expiring provisions of law are also possible. As was announced last week and the week before, the House will not adjourn the 112th Congress until action has been taken to avert the fiscal cliff. Members are advised to retain flexibility in their travel schedules through the end of the year to the maximum extent possible. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I'd say to the gentleman he is correct in assuming that the Defense bill will not be ready. We don't know for sure, but probably likely by Wednesday or after, so, without complete surety, I will say to the gentleman, likely a suspension debate on the floor on Tuesday.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. He is correct. We've had this discussion before at the end of each week, and I would say to the gentleman that suggestion that he has, has certainly been brought to me on several occasions this week. I would say to the gentleman I know that he joins me in the desire to try and address all the aspects facing this country in terms of the fiscal cliff, namely, to try and actually put us on a path to managing down the deficit and the debt; and, as the gentleman knows, we are trying, in terms of negotiating with the White House. And the Speaker has been very earnest in his desire to want to address the spending problem, not just the revenue problem, and the gentleman's suggestion would not go to that. And I would say to the gentleman his proposal would leave the issue of increased taxes on small businesses making over $200,000 a year. And if the concern is to try and focus on generating more jobs and helping heal the economy, I'd ask the gentleman, in return, what is his suggestion about helping those businesses because, as we know, the preponderance of the jobs created come from those small businesses making $200,000 and up.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman again. I think, as the gentleman has heard me say before, the majority of business income comes from those small businesses with incomes over $200,000; and the higher the percentage of income derived from a small business, the more jobs are created by that individual. And that is the point. We also know, and the gentleman has heard me recite these figures before, there was a third-party outside study conducted which would indicate that if the gentleman's proposal is passed, that we are going to see the reduction of 700,000 jobs going forward. Again, if the focus is on jobs, as it should be, it raises certain concerns. I would also remind the gentleman, he and I both feel very strongly about trying to do something about the fiscal health of the Federal Government in attempts to try and heal the economy, and the fiscal health of the government has much more to do about getting control of the spending rather than bringing more revenue in. More revenue in can come if we grow the economy, but just by statically increasing tax rates without doing anything to try and address the spending problem will actually make the problem worse and will leave that mountain of debt untouched. As the gentleman knows, our Speaker has tried and tried to get the White House engaged in actually discussing specifics the way those specifics were discussed a year-and-a-half ago. These kind of things that we all know need to be done on the entitlement programs, the White House needs to come forward and say that they'll join us in trying to fix the problem, and that is what we have not seen. We have seen, Mr. Speaker, Speaker Boehner go forward and put revenues on the table, and we asked the White House to join us in trying to fix the problem on spending. And that's where things have stopped, and hopefully we can resolve that. As the gentleman knows--and I'm committed--and as we have announced in the schedule, we will stay here until we can resolve the problem.

Mr. CANTOR. I'd say to the gentleman, on issues that we have agreement on, I think the gentleman and I both have agreement on many of the spending issues. I think the gentleman has been outspoken in his commitment to say, hey, we've got to modernize, if you will, the age eligibility of some of our entitlement programs. I think the gentleman, if I'm correct, has said that he is in support of adjusting the age eligibility for Medicare.

Mr. CANTOR. I'd say to the gentleman this is exactly the kind of conversation that we should be having about fixing the problem rather than just kicking the can. Again, the gentleman has been very upfront about, I think, his commitment to do some of those more difficult political things that I agree with him on. But, unfortunately, we're not having those conversations. We're not having those conversations because I believe there are others in his party in the House and elsewhere--certainly in the White House--that refuse to engage in the specifics about how we address the mountain of debt and the continuing spiraling upwards of spending. That is what we've got to do. I think the gentleman would say, with running the risk of putting words in his mouth, that many folks out there who are wealthy would say, sure, I'll pay more taxes. But I would say back to those individuals: I believe that you say that because you would trust that your money is being spent to pay down the debt and the deficit. That's what we're trying to get to. None of us on this side of the aisle believe raising taxes is good in this economy or it's something that we should do by feeding more money into the Federal Government, and certainly if the Federal Government is not fixing the problem. That's what we're trying to do, Mr. Speaker. I know the gentleman understands my point of view on this, and we've had this discussion continuously.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, along those lines, the gentleman talked about the '01, '03 tax cuts. He is talking about mostly the 98 percent that he refers to that continue to need that tax cut. I'd ask the gentleman, Is he now saying we need to pay for that tax cut?

Mr. CANTOR. Well, Mr. Speaker, I'd say to the gentleman I know the gentleman understands that my view is you don't have to pay for giving people back the money that they earned, but the gentleman takes that view; but that's exactly the point of these discussions. Where is the discussion about the specifics on where we are paying for things in terms of reducing spending? That's exactly the point. If the gentleman would be so kind as to go to the White House and engage the President to say, hey, give us some specifics, because the President so desperately wants to raise those taxes and to grant the 98 percent the tax relief. If the gentleman's contention is the President's, where are the specifics on the other side of the ledger? That's exactly what we're saying, Mr. Speaker. We need to solve this problem.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker. I will say this, again, the gentleman has been very good, not in the negotiations with the Speaker and the President, but somehow knowing the state of affairs. Because this is the problem: if the gentleman says that we ought to look to the President's budget proposals as our guide as to what he would accept and propose on the specifics, just yesterday, I think, the news came that the administration has now decided not to uphold its commitment on the Medicaid reduction in spending. So what are we to believe as far as the President's proposals in his budget from months and months ago and how that applies to the discussions and negotiations around the fiscal cliff? Which is exactly why we need the specifics now. I understand and take the gentleman's point as far as the 800 billion, but we have not dealt at all with the spending side of the ledger. And the commitment should be balanced. As the President always says, we need a balanced approach. Yet we don't have any discussion on the spending side of the ledger other than to reference a prior proposal by the administration which has now said, no, we are not sticking to that on the Medicaid piece. So what are we to believe? Which is exactly the point. We need real specificity in terms of the spending. And I take the gentleman's point on the 800 billion. Yes, but it takes two sides, and this White House and President have refused on the spending side.

Mr. CANTOR. If the gentleman would yield, we have just seen the administration backtrack on its commitment on that list.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I believe that, in all fairness, looking at the credit-rating agencies and their view towards debt ceiling increase discussions, some of that certainly has to do with the continuing increasing of debt and its burden on this country, our citizens, and its economy. And if the gentleman recalls a year and a half ago when we were engaged in the discussions around the increase in the debt ceiling, we established a proposition which said that if we're going to increase the debt ceiling, we ought to be decreasing the spending in a commensurate amount. That's very simply put. The difficulty was we could not get the gentleman's party and/or the White House to go along with us in terms of agreement of those spending reductions. It's an echo of the original discussion the gentleman and I just had as far as the fiscal cliff is concerned. Our commitment is to try to reduce the mountain of debt that is strangling this country and try to stop the spending that continues to spiral out of control. So any discussion of the increase of debt for us has to be accompanied with a real commitment to the reduction in spending, otherwise those credit rating agencies are going to continue to do what they did. In order to engender confidence in those agencies and the markets and throughout the American economy and the public, we have got to gain some credibility on the spending issue and stop the spending. That is our position. The gentleman knows that. Yes, we all agree, America is a country that pays its bills. We need to stop racking up so many of them because we've gotten to a situation where we are generating a trillion dollars of additional annual debt. We can't do that. That is why we take the position we do, to try and arrest that, to get our economy back on an even keel so we can heal that economy.

Mr. CANTOR. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CANTOR. That is a mischaracterization of my remarks, Mr. Speaker. All I said was we feel this White House has a tin ear in terms of the spending problem. What we're saying is we need some balance. Just as the rhetoric comes from the White House that we need a balanced approach, we need a balanced approach on both sides, spending and revenue. That's what the whole discussion is about on the debt ceiling issue because it is accessing additional funds for the Federal Government, but instead of through taxation, borrowing. Equally, if we are going to increase that, we better be decreasing the other side of the ledger so we don't continue to increase and mount that debt.

Mr. CANTOR. As the gentleman knows, on the farm bill we are committed to trying to address the issue of the farm bill prior to leaving for the year. As far as the Violence Against Women Act, as the gentleman knows, I'm in discussions with the Vice President. I know it is of particular interest to him. There are many Members on our side whom I've met with today, as well as Members of the other body, who are interested too. We have met, and we are trying to work out the differences. I'm committed to do all I can, as the gentleman knows, to bring this to a conclusion so we can see its passage. As far as the supplemental bill, I know that the White House--and the gentleman has heard me say this before--has submitted its request. Our Appropriations Committee is doing its review of the request to see that that supplemental aid gets to the victims that need it, to the localities and the States that need it, and is money that will be spent directly as a result of the very catastrophic storm of Sandy, and we hope to be able to resolve that as well. We are operating in an environment of the post-Budget Control Act where we have put in place budget mechanisms for disasters. As the gentleman knows, FEMA has indicated it has the money it needs to operate for at least a little while, but we're committed to making sure that adequate funding does get to the victims of that very catastrophic storm.

Mr. CANTOR. I think the gentleman is aware, Mr. Speaker, that the chairman of the committee, Chairman Camp, is speaking with the ranking member to try and see what it is that we can do to go forward on that issue as well.

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. I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, no votes are expected in the House. On Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and at 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and at noon for legislative business. On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m. on Thursday. Members are advised that this is a change from the original House calendar. Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of bills under suspension of the rules, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business Friday. Additionally, the House will appoint conferees for the National Defense Authorization Act now that the Senate has completed its work. As was announced last week, the House has a number of outstanding legislative items that we must resolve, and first amongst them is the so-called ``fiscal cliff.'' Though the House's target adjournment set in October of last year was December 14, that is no longer the case. Instead, Members are advised that the House will now be in session the week of December 17. Exact days will be announced next week. Members are further reminded that the House will not adjourn the 112th Congress until a credible solution to the fiscal cliff has been found.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that is correct.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that I don't think it is a good thing right now to bring that bill to the floor because we hope that we can have successful negotiations with the White House. I think, as the gentleman said earlier this week, Mr. Speaker, that our side actually put on the table, in our letter to the President, some specific proposals that actually deserve a response from the White House. That's what we're looking for: Are we going to get a response to our proposal about putting revenues of $800 billion on the table, of putting out there a framework for spending reduction? I know, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has agreed with me that we've got to do something to address the spending problem because you can't keep taxing and borrowing without doing the other side, which is to take care of the problem of spending. I think that the letter and the proposal that we sent to the President deserve a response, Mr. Speaker; and if we don't get a response, then perhaps the President will be willing to meet with us--one or the other--because it doesn't seem to me to be upholding the obligation to the American people that we're going to resolve this issue if we just stand still. We put these specifics out on the table. The President has not responded. We ask the President to respond, Mr. Speaker. And I'd say to the gentleman that I hope that that's what can happen, either a response from the President--not just a summary rejection but a specific, serious response in the nature of our proposal--or if the President would agree to sit down and talk about it. That's what we've got to do to fulfill our obligation. I don't think bringing that bill to the floor, Mr. Speaker, is going to further that likelihood.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. That's what, really, discussions are for; that's what meetings are for. It's to try to get to the specifics. And although he and I differ, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and I differ about the specifics of our proposal and the President's proposal because, frankly, I know and I think both sides know where each other are on taxes right now. Certainly the President was in a different place back in the summer of 2011 when he had indicated that--what was said was, Give us $1 trillion in additional revenues which could be accomplished without hiking tax rates is what the President said. Certainly the position he's taking now, that absolutely we have to have rate increases, is different than that. But that's what the President has said this time. So we know where each other is there. It's the specifics on the spending. The gentleman points out, Mr. Speaker, that the President has submitted budgets in the past. There's been no discussions of specifics whatsoever, even when the Speaker or I have suggested in meetings that we've had as to where are your specifics. They have just not been forthcoming. So if the President is serious to actually do something about the problem, then I think we do need to come together and say to the American people we're willing to cut the wasteful spending here and, in the gentleman's own words, Mr. Speaker, to pay for what we actually spend, not to just keep spending what we don't have. I think it could really move the ball forward on these negotiations. So I accept the spirit in which the gentleman suggests we should have more discussions to get the ball moving forward; it's just the White House doesn't seem willing to do so. And instead, we see the President going on a television interview and saying that he summarily rejects our position instead of trying to get down to the specifics of the problem, which is reducing wasteful spending.

Mr. CANTOR. I accept the gentleman's good intentions, and I know that he doesn't think that we ought to be imposing additional obligations on the American people to pay more of their money into Washington if the money is not going to be spent in a way that is something that they would like. So if it's wasteful spending, or if it's spending just to aggravate the deficit situation, and that's from the perspective that we come, fix the problem. If the obsession is to raise taxes, you know we don't agree with that, but fix the problem. So if you're asking for somebody to give more of their money to Washington, then at least be able to tell them that we are going to manage down the debt. That's what we're about here, which is why the focus is on spending, and how we have to ratchet down the spending in this town. That's where we've heard no specifics or willingness on the part of the President to engage in discussions about specifics on spending. As far as the math is concerned, again, it was a very different President in the summer of 2011 when he said $1.2 trillion in additional revenues could be accomplished without hiking tax rates. That's what he said. So, again, all of a sudden that math doesn't work, but it worked for 1.2 before. Regardless, we sort of understand now, at least this round, where everyone is on taxes. Let's get to the problem, and maybe then we can resolve the taxes question.