Eric Cantor

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman loves to talk about spending under the Bush years and under the years that our party controlled Congress. But I find it somewhat ironic at this point to go on talking about the inability to control spending when it is his party and the majority currently that is unable to produce a budget. He and I have had discussions again about the inability of this House to do its work, and in fact, I know the gentleman recalls, because it has been reported before that he himself says that when we are unable to pass a budget, and I quote, ``it is failing to meet the most basic responsibility of governing, that is enacting a budget.'' In the same way, the gentleman's chairman of the Budget Committee from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) said, quote, ``If you can't budget, you can't govern. In a parliamentary system it's more than an adage.''

Mr. CANTOR. And our job here in this Congress is to go about trying to address the problems through the processes that his party has put in place. Right now, priority one should be a budget. Okay. So if the gentleman is suggesting that perhaps we bring Mr. Ryan's roadmap bill to the floor, a 75-year document, how is that even something that we could expect is a serious gesture to do something about the fiscal needs this country has when his party can't even produce a budget for this fiscal year? So again I say, Mr. Speaker, let's get serious now. There are a lot of things we can agree on. The budget cut that we brought to the floor today is something that I believe, up-or-down, if his Members were given the opportunity to vote on again and think about without being tainted by some accusation that it may not be for real, these are cuts that are serious. We've got to start somewhere, and the American people have said start here. So this is what we're about, Mr. Speaker, and I'd ask the gentleman to work with us and bring these types of cuts to the floor.

Mr. CANTOR. I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, the House voted today on the first YouCut proposal. It was a spending cut selected by the American people. Unfortunately, only nine Members from the gentleman's side of the aisle joined with all Republicans in voting to save the taxpayers $2.5 billion. I wish more Members of the Democratic Caucus had voted with Republicans. The good news is Members will have the opportunity to vote on another cut again next week. Right now as we speak, Mr. Speaker, Americans are casting their votes at Republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut for what they would like the House to cut next week. So, in keeping with the gentleman's announcement about next week's floor schedule, I would like to announce that the House will vote on one of these five spending cut proposals next week: first, to eliminate the Byrd Honor Scholarship Program, a $420 million item for savings; second, stop the proposed Federal employee pay raise next year, a potential $30 billion worth of savings; third, to suspend the Federal land purchases, a $2.6 billion potential savings, Mr. Speaker; fourth, an ability to terminate U.S. funding for UNESCO, a potential item for $810 million worth of savings to the taxpayers; or fifth, a move to eliminate mohair subsidies, something that would save the taxpayers $10 million. Mr. Speaker, I would say again, the gentleman knows about this program. It is nothing but an attempt for us to try and change the culture here in Washington towards one of saving taxpayer dollars. Reducing the budget deficit should be a bipartisan effort, and we would hope that the gentleman and his colleagues could join with us as we bring up the next YouCut proposal next week.

Mr. CANTOR. Not yet, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Again, I would respond by saying it is just not all that black and white, and he knows it. There is no way that the blame for what happened can go singly to one party, one administration, or what have you. We all have to come here with the best of intentions to work together and to point to the good in this country and what made us who we are, and that is the freedom and the economic freedom afforded by our system. Those are the principles by which we come to this building, Mr. Speaker. And some of us have a strong objection to the increasing sense that somehow we've got all of the answers here in Washington, that we don't have to listen to the people. I'm glad to hear that the gentleman is going to bring some YouCut proposals to the floor. That's a great start. We need to keep listening to the people, doing what it is they expect, which is to get the Federal spending under control. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I look forward to working with Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. CANTOR. I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. I apologize, Mr. Speaker, for misunderstanding the gentleman. I would respond to that statement then by saying the American people have told us to stop spending, to stop spending money we don't have. And that's the purpose for our sponsoring this provision today, the purpose for our launching YouCut, and we will expect to continue to have the votes on listening to the American people to begin to cut the Federal deficit. But, again, Mr. Speaker, in closing, I look forward to working with the gentleman from Maryland in a fiscally responsible manner which, again, we would hope starts with passing a budget blueprint this year, making some of the tough decisions to cut spending just like the American families and small business people are doing as we speak. And with that, I thank the gentleman for his time, and I yield back.

Mr. CANTOR. I say to the Speaker, the gentleman suggests that our ranking member on the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan's roadmap proposal, is the budget. That is not the budget. That's a 75-year document. The gentleman, I think, knows, if he's looked at that, it is a plan to try and address the very real fiscal challenges that this country faces.

Mr. CANTOR. I appreciate that. I would say instead of casting stones and pointing blame and saying you too did this, I believe that it is most important for us to recognize now the failure of this body to do what the American people expect us to do to control spending, and that is to produce a budget. Mr. Speaker, I go on to say the gentleman was quick to, if I could say, malign the attempt to reduce the $2.4 billion program under the expanded welfare program under the stimulus bill that we just had a vote on. But I would point out that there were nine Members on his side of the aisle--Mr. Bright, Mr. Donnelly, Ms. Giffords, Mrs. Kirkpatrick, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Minnick, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Nye, and Mr. Taylor--these individual Members felt that perhaps we were and did have a valid point to make, that we ought to be cutting spending right now. I would say to the gentleman, perhaps he is suggesting that these individuals voted to kill 185,000 jobs. I wouldn't say that those Members tried to do that in that vote. Again, I would just ask the gentleman whether that was his intention. I would probably think he wouldn't think his Members would vote to kill jobs.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, what I am asking the gentleman to do is to work with us in bringing to the floor and scheduling bills that actually reduce spending here in Washington because the gentleman indicated that he knows why all of this is being done, and I think that perhaps maybe he's thinking it's being done under the old construct. Where we are now, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, is that the American people expect some accountability here in Washington. They want us to stop spending money we don't have. The reason we launched the YouCut program is, number one, we want to say to the American people, we're listening, that we're not setting aside their wishes and their desires, that we care about what they think. That's what YouCut is all about. It's about empowering folks to go online and to tell us what they think, given the options presented to cut the Federal budget deficit. That's why we're doing this program, Mr. Speaker, and that's what YouCut is all about. I would say to the gentleman, not one bill on the floor this week cut a single dollar from the Federal deficit. That's why we brought this proposal up. Now, as to why we chose the PQ, I think the gentleman knows that the rules put in place and make it so that the minority has no other way to posit their alternatives or posit wishes that we may have other than to use a PQ, and that's why we elected to do this. If the gentleman wants to schedule a bill that we are discussing on substantive grounds, that's what we're about. Bring these bills to the floor for open and fair debate. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, he mentions the disappointment that he has over some on our side of the aisle and the other side of this building in not supporting the President's commission addressing the fiscal outlook for this country. The gentleman knows well the reason many Members on our side of the aisle refused to participate in that vote was because, in fact, the focus was not going to be on that commission cutting spending. We think that Washington doesn't have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem here. So why couldn't we just set aside the need for additional revenues, put that off the table, and focus on spending? Again, that's what the YouCut program is about. That's why we're bringing these things to the floor, and I would hope that the gentleman could join us in demonstrating that we're listening to the people and actually moving towards a sense of fiscal discipline here in Washington.

Mr. CANTOR. I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, there are no ``gotcha'' ads here. There was a statement made by the gentleman that said that the program that we were attempting to cut was a program that could create or has created 185,000 jobs. I just say to the gentleman, nine of his Members voted with us on that vote, and I would ask the gentleman does he think those nine Members voted to kill 185,000 jobs the way he in his statement sort of implied that Republicans intended to do?

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from California. I would just like to follow up on the remarks that we, too, would tell the gentleman from West Virginia, we agree entirely with the thrust of his remarks and express our sorrow for the folks of West Virginia who have experienced such a tragic loss. I would say again, the ranking member on the Rules Committee has indicated already that we could have already embarked upon the effort that the gentleman from West Virginia and the lady from New York speak about because we did offer unanimous consent on this. So we are in total agreement there. However, I will rise in opposition to the previous question. Mr. Speaker, for the millions of Americans demanding accountability for the culture of reckless runaway spending in Washington, meet YouCut. At a time when approval of congressional spending has reached its lowest ebb, this first-of-its-kind initiative empowers taxpayers with the ability to contribute directly to a new culture of savings in our Nation's capital. Each week the public votes on one of five wasteful spending items that they would like to strip from the Federal budget. Once the votes are tallied, the House will vote on whether or not to cut the winning provision from the Federal balance sheet. Within 5 days of the experiment, over 280,000 Americans cast their vote either online or by text message. That's a rate, Mr. Speaker, of more than 2,000 votes per hour, with less than 1 percent of the votes originating from inside the Beltway, I might add. The overwhelming response speaks to the extreme frustration taxpayers feel toward a Congress that refuses to listen to them. Make no mistake: America is at a critical crossroads. The American people are tired of the spending binges. They look across the Atlantic and see Europe collapsing under the weight of its debt. With our own deficit swelling, it's only natural to fear that we are heading down the same road to ruin. YouCut is not a political venture. It is about shifting the pendulum in Washington back towards the direction of saving money. Rooting out unnecessary spending should be a bipartisan endeavor. This week the House has considered two bills to name a post office and a Federal building, 11 resolutions honoring different individuals, sports teams, or causes, including even recognizing Craft Beer Week. We have considered bills to spend more money and create new programs. Mr. Speaker, what we have not considered is a single bill to reduce spending. Unfortunately, this is a pretty typical week. Today we have a chance to change that. During the first week of YouCut, a plurality of voters chose to axe a recently created $2.5 billion annual welfare program that undercuts cost-saving welfare reforms made in 1996 by a Republican Congress and a Democratic President. It was bipartisan reform. This new program undermines those reforms. While it was just created last year, the reports of waste and fraud are already trickling in: perverse incentives for States to increase welfare caseloads, reports of cash being given out to welfare recipients that is then used to buy flat-screen TVs, iPods, and video gaming systems. Enough is enough. To put it simply, even when the funds are not being so extravagantly wasted, we cannot afford this program. The American people understand this. That is why they asked us to vote on this proposal to terminate this program and to use that money to reduce the deficit. This previous question vote is the vote to do just that. Today, over a quarter-million Americans will get to see whether their Representatives in Congress share their specific fiscal priorities. I urge my colleagues to listen to the voice of the people and take up this vote today and vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I would say, first of all, I think the gentleman knows I have never, never rooted against this economy or this country. In fact, I have gone out of my way to make public statements when we have positive job growth to say, when we see jobs growing, it is a good thing. Period. I have been consistent in that message. So I just wanted to speak to that and correct the gentleman's assertion that somehow I am not giving credit for job growth. But I would say we do have much work to be done. He indicates that somehow this last year was a year that Americans paid lower taxes than ever before in recent memory. I would say they paid lower taxes because we have a progressive tax system; and the fact that the recession reduced income by over $200 billion last year versus 2008. That is the reality. If you want to get serious, that is the reality. Not some fantasy that we have somehow lowered tax rates, when we know good and well at the end of this year tax rates are expected to skyrocket again on top of what we have just done with the new entitlement bill and the health care bill. So I would say to the gentleman, I am not questioning his intentions. I am not saying that there haven't been substantive proposals brought to the floor. I am saying there have been a disproportionate number of times we have been on the floor doing things that we could have been spending time on others to do more productive things for the people of this country. I agree; the gentleman says we are at a crossroads. Yes, we are. The problem is, the substance and the policy proposals that the gentleman and his party have been bringing to the floor over the last year and a half have serious consequences, and they are aggravating the future prospects for growth in this country. He just indicated, Mr. Speaker, that entitlements, if we don't get a handle on entitlements, we could see our standard of living go down. Well, you are absolutely right. The gentleman is correct on that. But what did we just pass a few months ago? The largest entitlement ever. So, again, we can say things and we can have good intentions; but when they are matched with the deeds, something just doesn't add up. And I would say, Mr. Speaker, the issue is about spending. It is about the debt we are amassing. So when the gentleman points out that they have brought to the floor the stimulus bill of 800-some billion dollars, that has proven not to be a good, quote-unquote, investment and in fact has now saddled our kids and their kids with even more debt, and sent a signal to the global investment community that America may have trouble paying its bills. That is why we are intent on trying to bring forward the You Cut proposals to begin changing the culture here in this town, in this body, to begin to save taxpayer dollars, not with an emphasis on spending. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the gentleman's announcement about next week's floor schedule, I'd also like to announce an additional item that we Republicans would like to see and will bring up for a vote on the House floor next week. Yesterday, House Republicans announced an unprecedented online effort called YouCut, and this can be found at republicanwhip.house.gov/ YouCut. This program allows the public to vote on wasteful programs they'd like to see the House cut. Over 70,000 Americans have thus far voted in the program called YouCut. I'd say, Mr. Speaker, we will announce the public's choice this coming Monday and then provide for debate on the cut of their choosing during our first rule bill of the week, which, as the gentleman has indicated, is the tax extenders. And, Mr. Speaker, therefore I would say to the Members that in addition to the majority leader's announced schedule, there will also be a vote on the consideration of one of five possible savings proposals. The first is to eliminate the Presidential Election Fund, and that would amount to a $260 million saving. The next could be the elimination of the taxpayers' subsidized union activities, a $600 million savings to the taxpayer. Next could be the elimination of a HUD program that funds doctoral dissertations. That is a $1 million tax savings for the taxpayers. Also, we could see the people of this country vote for the elimination of new nonreform welfare programs that could save the public $3.5 billion. Also, Mr. Speaker, among the items that the American public is opining on right now online is a proposal to eliminate wealthy communities from the CDBG program. That would offer a $2.6 billion savings to the taxpayers. So I'd say, Mr. Speaker, we on the Republican side of the aisle, as I have told the gentleman before, stand ready to work with the majority in hopes of trying to encourage legislation that would reflect these cuts, encourage the majority to bring those to the floor. But having not received any bit of cooperation or at least recognition that we need to do something like that, we intend to bring those votes forward on these items and whichever items the American people vote on first to the floor next week. Mr. Speaker, moving on to the gentleman's announced schedule. I notice that the majority leader did not indicate whether we would consider a budget next week. It's now been 4 weeks since the April 15 deadline for completing a budget, and I'd ask the gentleman, does he still think that the House will consider a budget prior to Memorial Day, as he stated before? And I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. And I would ask, Mr. Speaker, would the same be for the supplemental as well--before the Memorial Day recess?

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for his sentiments. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that first of all, if we can't start here and instead have to wait until after the upcoming election, what does that say to the American people? I also have noted that the gentleman has issued statements about the relative size of the proposed options online under the YouCut program. And nowhere else, nowhere else but Washington could these cuts be deemed to not be significant. Just because they are less than 1 percent of the Federal budget doesn't mean we ought not at least start there rather than kick the can down the road like Washington has under both parties' leadership. And the gentleman knows I am the first to admit that our party was fired in 2006 much on account of the runaway spending. But we have an opportunity to work together to actually begin some progress rather than continue to say let's shift the responsibility outside to a commission that the President has created. The facts are, Mr. Speaker, we've considered 63 resolutions naming post offices this year, 62 resolutions congratulating sports teams, and we've even supported the designation of Pi Day. Yet you don't think, and I really can't imagine why, we wouldn't have time to debate proposals regarding the types of savings that I enumerated. And that's why, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, if he doesn't want to engage in the votes that we are going to present next week, why can't we have a bill brought to the floor with these measures? He and I can sit here and debate in a colloquy, but I think the American people would like to see the House actually engage in these debates. So I, again, appreciate the gentleman's indication that he wants to work with us, but time and again we see ourselves here on this House floor taking up resolutions naming post offices instead of trying to do the people's business, emphasizing their priority, which is let's do something to cut the debt that is being imposed on our kids and their kids once and for all.

Mr. CANTOR. That is correct, I would say to the gentleman. I am referring to that. And so while we are on that subject, we know very well there has been no indication whatsoever that the ability for entrepreneurs to continue to experience an atmosphere that is conducive to their investment and assumption of risk will continue, because we are facing the largest tax hike in American history at the end of this year and the majority has been unwilling to say that is not coming. That is hanging over this economy as a veil of uncertainty. And I would say to the gentleman, if he is so excited about the positive results that he indicates, largely due to the fiscal policies in place that will be not in place after the end of this year, I would say that maybe we should consider extending the rate cuts and cap gains and dividends and marginal rate reductions that are in place now. I would also say to the gentleman, listen, we have been now for weeks and months through this: Your fault, our fault. Your fault, our fault. The public and the American people are upset. They don't want blame games anymore; they want to stop the spending. And just next week, the gentleman is talking again about bringing more spending. He indicates that all economists supported the stimulus bill. He knows that is not true. But, like a good lawyer, he is going to present his case. But what I would say to the gentleman, let's stop the spending now. That is why we have started and launched the You Cut program. And, if he alleges incremental modest steps, fine. Join us in that. But let's stop the spending, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CANTOR. That has always been my position. But when we are looking at some of the items that we are discussing here on the You Cut options, these are items that are niceties. They may be well-intentioned; but if we are worried about job creation and we are worried about deficits growing, we ought to begin to take action now. I would ask the gentleman, he mentioned the tax extenders bill for next week, and I wonder if he could tell us the content of that bill. Will there be a markup on the bill? Reports have indicated, and perhaps the gentleman has said, that the bill will be nearly $200 billion. And what kind of rule, whether it be open or not, would he expect?

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I look forward to continuing to work with the gentleman in a fiscally responsible manner, which starts with passing a budget blueprint for this year, just like American families have to do. I thank the gentleman once again for his time, and I yield back.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. And I know that the gentleman knows, having quoted the article that he did, in that same article the writer gives a lot of credit to the impact of the so-called Bush tax cuts as being economically generative, causing some of the positive results.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, given the fact that he has announced only one rule bill for next week, I would ask the gentleman if he expects the House to be in session next Friday, and I yield.