Eric Cantor

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding again. First of all I'd ask, was there over 8 percent unemployment then? That's the first thing, Mr. Speaker. We are about trying to do something to get people back to work. And if you're worried about the 98 percent, which we all are, the best thing we can do is to make sure there are more jobs. And so our objection to the gentleman's proposal to raise taxes is the fact that that tax hike that he's advocating is going to affect 53 percent of all small business income. The Joint Committee on Tax says that.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, the point is about jobs. Okay? And the jobs come from the small businesses who are generating income. If you want to help people who are creating jobs, don't raise their taxes, especially when unemployment is over 8 percent. It's about jobs. I mean, that's the thing, Mr. Speaker. We always hear somehow that we're favoring some big bad business. No, we're about the businesses who create jobs. Small businesses, according to the Small Business Administration definition, create jobs. So, Mr. Speaker, just because, in the gentleman's mind, somehow somebody he doesn't like because they're so successful gets a benefit, the overwhelming majority of the people who will not get a tax hike under our plan will go out and create a job.

Mr. CANTOR. I absolutely retract that, Mr. Speaker. I absolutely retract that. But the gentleman continues to malign people who he feels don't deserve the same treatment on taxes. And what we're saying, if they're successful, that means they're creating jobs. That's the prescription we need right now is more jobs. Our policy is about helping those small businessmen and women who are creating jobs so we can finally do something to bring this unemployment down and get people back to work. That's all.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I think the differences are very plain. The gentleman has a way of simplifying things. According to what I took from what the gentleman just said, if we'd just raised taxes, all those jobs wouldn't have been lost, and everything would have been fine. Again, our proposition is completely the opposite. We believe that we've got a real spending problem here, Mr. Speaker. We've got a problem with an unwillingness to reform some programs. The gentleman talks about Members having to pay more when, in fact, it was our side that put forward the proposal that we should actually allow and require Members as well as Federal employees to pay more towards their retirements. The gentleman wasn't supportive of that. We've got some serious unfunded obligations at the Federal level. The American people know that. We are trying to solve problems. The problems are not solved by raising taxes. Now, if the gentleman is so intent on raising taxes--again, because there is a 2 percent that he just wants to pay more--I ask the gentleman to join us in actually fixing the problem that all experts say you can't tax your way out of and you can't grow your way out of. You've got to reform the programs. Mr. Speaker, we've been the only ones to put forward a plan that even begins to solve the problem--the President has not; the Senate has not; and the gentleman has not. It's about solving problems, producing results for the hardworking taxpayers of this country who so desperately want to see us go forward, reclaim America in its true aspirational sense and be that place of opportunity.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I'm going to try and make sure that I don't bring on even more because I know our colleagues are waiting to speak. I would say to the gentleman there is not unanimity on his side, as he knows, on Bowles-Simpson. In fact, the minority leader rejected Bowles-Simpson and the President has not endorsed Bowles-Simpson, which is part of the issue that the gentleman seeks some clarification on, which is: Where is the plan to get us out of this? The President was unwilling to even adopt that. The gentleman I think knows the reason why our side rejects Bowles- Simpson. We believe there are some good things in Bowles-Simpson, and I do look forward to working with the gentleman to see if we can work together in a cooperative fashion to get some results and resolve this cloud hanging over the economy. I'm looking forward to that. But Bowles-Simpson, number one, is not this so-called balanced approach, unless you say $1.22 in new taxes with $1 in cuts is balanced. We don't believe so, because we believe it has a detrimental impact on the growth of the economy. We also believe that the Bowles-Simpson revenue target of 21 percent of GDP is the highest target and something that exceeds that which we've been at pretty much over the last 70-something years, save for 3 years. We believe that that is too much of a revenue flow into Washington for Washington to make the decisions. We've got an issue there about the amount of taxes and the size of government. Yes, it's a totally legitimate discussion point, but it's an issue. It's not just rejection out of hand like the minority leader and the President have said. They reject that. We say this is why, and then we also say the disproportionate driver of the deficit is health care entitlements. The gentleman and I both agree upon that. How are we going to deal with it? Bowles-Simpson leaves in place the structural nature of those programs now and doesn't address this fundamental problem of growing unfunded liabilities. We want to solve that so that the safety net programs are there for the future and save them. That's our position. So I do look forward to working with the gentleman. There are some great things about tax reform in Bowles-Simpson. I want to work with the gentleman on that, and, if we can, have a conversation about resolving the deficit and the spending. Again, I'm trying not to invoke any more time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon on Tuesday, September 18, 2012; and when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at noon on Wednesday, September 19, 2012, for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey and commend the gentleman from Florida on bringing this bill forward. Madam Speaker, the bill before us is not about tax rates. Because I think that that issue will be resolved one way or another here shortly in this election. We know that there's a difference between the two sides. Unfortunately, our counterparts on the other side of the aisle think it's very important in this tough economy to raise taxes. We don't believe that, Madam Speaker. The bill before us simply asks the President to give us his plan for replacing the first year of cuts in the sequester. It has been 126 days since we passed our plan to responsibly replace the sequester with cuts that maintain our fiscal discipline. Our plan controls unchecked government spending and reduces wasteful and duplicative programs. But still there has been no action and no proposal coming from the other side of the Capitol, coming from the other side of the aisle. It has been 126 days since the President said he would veto our plan. But he has failed to put forward an alternative. And the letter that some of us Republican leaders wrote on July 14 asking the President to engage with us to come and find a bipartisan solution to the sequestration, that letter has gone unanswered. Madam Speaker, inaction carries a very high risk. Instability and unprecedented political transformation throughout the Middle East, a civil war in Syria, Iran's dogged pursuit of nuclear weapons in support for terrorism, as well as challenges posed by a rising China and geostrategic shifts in the Asia Pacific make maintaining American military preeminence as important as ever. And the deadly and tragic attacks on Ambassador Chris Stevens, Foreign Service Information Management Office Sean Smith, and two other Americans at our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, make clear that Islamic extremist terrorism remains a tremendous threat to the Middle East, the United States, and the international community. If the cuts in the sequester go forward, they will fundamentally weaken our current and long-term security and our ability to meet challenges we're facing. Implementing these cuts will mean reductions in shipbuilding, aircraft and missiles, shrinking our current force to levels not seen since before World War II. And that means fewer defense-related jobs. According to a study conducted by the Aerospace Industries Association, the job losses will reach 2 million. Let me put that in perspective. The economy added less than 100,000 jobs last month. Worse, more people dropped out of the labor force than were added to it. Under the sequester, unemployment would soar from its current level up to 9 percent, setting back any progress the economy has made. According to the same study, the jobs of more than 200,000 Virginians, my own State, are on the line. A small business in my district called Produce Source Partners, which provides fresh food to military bases, says the sequester threatens the jobs of their 200 employees. Another small company in Virginia, HI-TEST Laboratories, could be forced to reduce their staff by as much as 30 percent. Removing these jobs from the community will shrink the local economy and set back an already underutilized business zone. That same predicament faces hundreds of hardworking men and women in towns from here to California. Madam Speaker, we are here today asking the President simply to come forward with a plan. We are here today because the minority has failed to work with us to find a solution to prevent these cuts that would hollow out our military and result in massive layoffs. Madam Speaker, the House has acted. Now we need leadership, Mr. President.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the choice before us is very clear. The priority for all of us is jobs, and the choice of how to best create an environment to create jobs is are we going to have taxes go up or not. Mr. Speaker, the House Republicans have put forward solutions to stop the tax hike so we can help create jobs for small businesses and beyond. Given that economic growth has stalled under President Obama's policies, it is downright puzzling that he and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would push for raising taxes on working families and small business owners. Nearly 2 years ago, President Obama opposed the same small business tax hike he now supports. Back then, he acknowledged that raising taxes was the wrong thing to do if you want to bring about job creation in a tough economy. This raises the question: Does the President actually think that the economy is doing so well that we should now tax job creators? Our Democratic colleagues offered their own tax proposal. Instead of offering a plan that would spur economic growth, the minority put forward the President's small business tax hike. As we saw, Mr. Speaker, the only plan with bipartisan support that passed this House this week was the plan to ensure that taxes do not go up on any American. As many on both sides of the aisle have made clear, the last thing small businesses need right now is a tax hike. There's no mystery as to how small business owners will respond when faced with higher taxes from Washington. They're rational actors, Mr. Speaker. And when something costs more, you get less of it. With less money to the bottom line, small businesses won't be able to grow as much, and they will not be able to expand as easily. As was said before by my colleagues from Michigan and Illinois, I think all of us agree on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of the Capitol that we need tax reform. This bill before us paves the way for pro-growth tax reform. This measure puts us on a path toward a simpler, flatter, fairer Tax Code. If you support comprehensive tax reform that will spur economic growth and make this country more competitive, you will vote for the bill. It's that simple. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan and for his leadership this week and in many others in his shepherding the movement for tax reform in this body. Ultimately, today's vote on this bill should be the easiest vote we take all year. Do we believe small business owners are the backbone of our economy? Do we want them to grow their businesses and create jobs? If the answer is ``yes,'' then you will support this bill.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the DC Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. It is simply unfathomable that, other than by the methods banned by federal law, the District of Columbia allows abortion for any reason, by any method up until the moment right before birth. While people may differ on the issue of abortion, Americans overwhelmingly support the notion that abortions should be restricted at the point at which an unborn child can feel pain. And with good reason, the ability to experience pain is one of the traits that makes us human. And the commitment to protect the defenseless from physical acts of violence is one of the hallmarks of humanity. Science demonstrates that by at least 20 weeks after fertilization, an unborn child can feel pain. In response to this scientific evidence, to date nine states have enacted laws to restrict late-term abortions. Just this week, a judge upheld an Arizona law that does the same thing we're attempting here today, citing the brutal methods used to abort a baby late in a pregnancy and the scientific fact that unborn children have developed pain sensors all over their bodies by at least 20 weeks. It is time to add the District of Columbia to the list of jurisdictions that put an end to the practice of late-term abortions.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman knows the Senate bill can't pass the House. We're trying to produce results for the people and particularly for the victims that need that assistance in that bill, and believe that this, our bill, the VAWA bill that passed the House, can pass the Senate. And again, I would say that the Senate bill is unconstitutional and it can't pass the House. So it seems to me that the best way forward is for the Senate to agree to the bill, which pretty much extends existing legislation, with some minor changes, so that the victims of abuse needing the assistance can actually receive that assistance.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding. Mr. Speaker, on Monday the House will meet in pro forma session, but 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 number of suspensions on Tuesday and Wednesday, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. In addition, the House will consider two bills under a rule to stop the tax hikes and provide for comprehensive tax reform: H.R. 8, the Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act, sponsored by Chairman Dave Camp; and H.R. 6169, the Pathway to Job Creation through a Simpler, Fairer Tax Code Act, sponsored by Chairman David Dreier. Together, these bills will ensure that no American faces a tax hike on January 1, while providing our small business men and women with the certainty to grow and create jobs. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the House may consider legislation related to programs and disaster assistance under the expiring farm bill legislation. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I didn't understand the gentleman's question, if he would please clarify.

Mr. CANTOR. Again, without having been privy to the conversation between the gentleman from Illinois and my friend from Maryland, I can say that the minority will be afforded the opportunity to offer the President's tax plan--not just as a motion to recommit, but certainly as a stand- alone amendment, as well.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman, again, it is our intention to allow the minority to offer as a motion to recommit or as a stand-alone amendment the President's plan. Obviously, we'll have to see what is being offered, but that is the intention, consistent with the Speaker's remarks publicly today.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I will say back to the gentleman, we do expect, and our intention is, to allow your tax hike to be made in order. I don't understand, Mr. Speaker, how many more times I have to say that. The Speaker has always represented that we were going to work towards an open process. I would remind the gentleman that when his party was last in the majority and considered the extension of expiring rates in 2010 that his party made in order just one amendment to H.R. 4853, for their own Member, Mr. Levin, not for the Republicans, because we were not offered a single amendment. We weren't even offered a motion to recommit. In fact, the Pelosi-led Congress denied us a motion to recommit on 47 separate occasions. So I would say to the gentleman again, the Speaker has been consistent throughout. We intend to continue to strive towards an open process. We intend to offer you a motion to recommit, a stand-alone amendment, if you want to offer a tax hike twice. That is our intention, yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CANTOR. I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I'd say to the gentleman, thank you for that note. I know the gentleman is continuing to express his support for the President's plan. As the gentleman knows, our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle in the Senate feel strongly, as we do over here in the House, that the President's tax plan, as was demonstrated recently by a nonpartisan study, will cost the economy over 700,000 jobs. It will reduce economic output. The gentleman knows our position on that. And we intend to, again, allow for that vote to occur and look forward to a robust debate that will ensue.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I'd say to the gentleman that we're continuing to work with Chairman Lucas and our Members to determine the best way forward. I would say to the gentleman that the Senate bill he refers to does not have a majority of support in the House, and actually would ask the gentleman if he would respond to the question whether he supports the House farm bill.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I'd say to the gentleman, I'm glad to hear that the gentleman would like to support an effort to address the need for drought assistance and perhaps other programs that have or will expire, and look forward to perhaps his support if that's where we end up next week, allowing for that vote to occur, along with his support.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I respond to the gentleman and say that, as he knows, the Senate bill is unconstitutional because it contains a revenue measure in it. So we are unable to get to conference with the Senate. I think that I, as well as the Speaker, have indicated that we support going to conference with the Senate. They need to produce a bill so that we can go to conference and effect a passage of that very important legislation to allow for relief monies to get to the victims that that bill and legislation is designed to protect.

Mr. CANTOR. I would respond to the gentleman by saying there are many women Members of our conference that are cosponsors of that bill, and I know of at least one, if not more, who've been subject to domestic abuse, and feel that our bill does provide the necessary protections for everyone who is subject to domestic abuse, and feel that the bill does address the concerns the gentleman raises. And in the business of trying to produce results rather than to dwell on where there are differences, if those individuals who sponsored the bill and who have, unfortunately, had experience in domestic abuse, as well as law enforcement, if that is the case, certainly, those individuals would know about it more than the gentleman or I. I think we ought to go about passing this bill and allow for the Senate to go ahead and do so, so the victims of domestic abuse can actually receive the protections and assistance they deserve.

Mr. CANTOR. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CANTOR. I said to the gentleman, we really do want to go to the conference with the Senate. Okay? And so it's not pass the Senate bill or no bill. We want to go to conference with the Senate, Mr. Speaker. I've said that. So I do take exception to the gentleman's remarks.

Mr. CANTOR. I'd say to the gentleman, the Senate postal bill does not have majority support in the House, and we are continuing to work with Chairman Issa to ensure that there isn't an incident of default on the part of the Post Office. I think that the Postal Service has indicated that there is no risk of that in the short-term, and we're going to continue to address that to ensure that that does not happen; all the while, trying to address the overall issues, as the gentleman knows, that the Postal Service has in trying to get its fiscal house in order.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman, I know that our staffs have been working very diligently on this trying to iron out the differences with the other body and am very hopeful that we can get this done prior to the August recess.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday next.