Eric Cantor

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. I think there is certainly a concern to ensure that all laws have been followed. Certainly our primary concern is to make sure that we are protecting Americans in everything we do. And given the growing threat globally, the terrorist threat that we face, all of us share in that end. But I would say to the gentleman that somehow there have been statements made by the Speaker and others indicating a certain preconceived bias, like a belief that perhaps the CIA or others have somehow misled us. I do think the gentleman is correct in saying that we need to focus on what kind of practices occurred, but I also think that in an ongoing manner, to ensure compliance with the law, we need to understand if there is some type of preconceived bias, as was indicated in some of the public statements that may have been made today. And I do think that the gentleman would agree, openness and an indication of a predisposition prior to the revelation now of who knew what when may be somehow shaping the bias in these discussions. I share with the gentleman the notion, we need to follow the law. But if there is somehow a belief--and I'd ask the gentleman whether he shares this belief--that somehow the CIA or others have intentionally misled this body, because that seems to be some concern that has been raised today. I yield.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, I further say to the gentleman, the majority leader, that we've had a discussion on the floor today about the potential transfer and release of terrorist detainees from Guantanamo Bay. There's also been significant debate on the interrogation of these terrorist suspects, including the potential for congressional hearings and possible legislation. I say, Madam Speaker, to the gentleman, the Speaker of the House has signaled her intent to create a truth commission to investigate CIA interrogation tactics. I was wondering, Madam Speaker, if the gentleman could tell us the status of that truth commission and when we might expect such a commission to be formed and perhaps produce legislation that would come to the House floor to be voted upon.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. My question was not to get into the substance of the D.C. bill, but just to make sure that those of us who are ardent supporters of the Second Amendment rights would see that actually the citizens of the District of Columbia could enjoy those rights as well. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman about the omission of the cap- and-trade bill in his discussion for the schedule for the next several weeks. The reports have indicated that Chairman Waxman has now committed to bringing that bill that has been debated, at least, in subcommittee, forward, or at least beyond that subcommittee, to the full committee instead of the discussion in the subcommittee. It has given some of our Members some cause for alarm because, you know, this is a significant shift in policy. Some of us are very opposed to what this bill would do and have the consequences in mind of what this bill would do. If we look, Mr. Speaker, at Members on our side of the aisle who are on that subcommittee who would like to have a say in the crafting of any legislation, especially in the area of energy, somebody like John Shimkus who has a district that is very rich with coal, very, very concerning to him in terms of the economy and jobs. People like, on your side of the aisle, the gentleman from Louisiana, Charlie Melancon on that subcommittee, very interested in industry; Baron Hill of Indiana, who also has big concerns on the coal issue; Rick Boucher, from my own State of Virginia. Southwest Virginia is abundant with coal and natural resources. It would devastate that region if such a bill were to go forward. All of these Members, Mr. Speaker, do have a desire, I am sure, to be a part of the debate. I would ask, is it the leader's intention that this is a good move? He is the leader. And his chairmen, one of them has decided to move the bill beyond the subcommittee. Is that something he supports? And then is it the intention, I would ask of the leader, to bring the bill directly to the floor once, I assume, it passes the full committee?

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Again, I would say to the majority leader, I think that that underscores the importance of a bipartisan effort here on this bill and, frankly, if he were to see coming forward a rule that would allow for us to have the disposition of these issues on the floor, I do believe the American people would be better served, and certainly our men and women in uniform. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I would say that, just to reiterate my point, my sense is--and I'm not the one that counts votes on his side of the aisle, but as a former whip, I know he knows that there is some difficulty, and it is my hunch that without the support of Republicans that the American people wouldn't see the money flow to their troops. But I'd like to at this time, Mr. Speaker, if I could, yield to my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. CANTOR. Returning to next week's agenda, Mr. Speaker, for a moment, he mentions that the war supplemental will be coming to the floor, and it provides us with a chance, I know he agrees, to accomplish one of the most important things that we have to do here as a Member of Congress, which is to provide for the national defense of our country. And as the gentleman knows, many of us, most of us, if not all Republicans, stand with this President in support of his strategy in Afghanistan and the general region, and Pakistan, Iraq, and we stand with the President in his support of our troops there. I know that there have been, Mr. Speaker, some agreements on the gentleman's side of the aisle as far as the issues having to do with timetables, the issues of having to do with cutting off funding, of transfer of detainees from the Guantanamo Bay detention center facility. So I assume, and maybe it's an improper assumption, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask the gentleman if he could comment, if he believes that he will need the help and bipartisan support to pass this bill that we are interested on this side in helping pass for our troops, is it his intention that we will have an opportunity to address some of these concerns on the floor, specifically if he could tell us whether an amendment such as that proposed by Mr. Tiahrt from Kansas and the Appropriations Committee banning any further appropriations being allowed in the area of transferring detainees from the Guantanamo Bay facility?

Mr. CANTOR. I would ask the gentleman to follow up on the prospect of a vote on the D.C. bill and ask whether he could assure the Members on, frankly, both sides of the aisle who are concerned about the Second Amendment, whether there will be the necessary protections for the Second Amendment rights in that measure.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman has discussed next week's schedule, I would like to ask the gentleman if he could give the House and the public a sense of what to expect for the following week as well.

Mr. CANTOR. I would ask the gentleman what days he would think that the measures he discussed would come to the floor next week.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to call special attention to an activity Americans engage in throughout every day--prayer. Today is the National Day of Prayer, an observation established by Congress and President Truman in 1952. Our Nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, which continue to permeate our daily lives--and need to be preserved. In recent times, these principles and the demonstration of them has come under attack by certain segments of society. From the very beginning of our Nation's history, our Nation's leaders have relied heavily on their faith, a fact that led our Founders to include the constitutional right to freely exercise one's religion in the very beginning of our Bill of Rights. This right is every bit as fundamentally important--and deserving of protection--today as it was in the 18th century. Since the first call to prayer in 1775, when the Continental Congress called on the colonies to pray for wisdom in forming the Nation, the leaders of our Nation have continued to pray for that wisdom to shape our Nation. We look to God to provide us with the direction to act in accordance with His will, on behalf of the Americans who have sent us here to represent them. The one thing we know for certain is that there's nothing we can't accomplish--here in Congress or anywhere in the world--with God's help and blessing.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Daniel and Kim Irwin and their work with the Faison School--Autism Center of Virginia. This month Mr. and Mrs. Irwin were honored with a CARE Award honoring the significant contributions they have made in the education of America's youth. Their dedication to children with autism and to the Faison School can be seen in their ongoing professional growth and the tremendous success of their students. Dan and Kim both started at the Faison School over 5 years ago. During this time they both obtained teacher certifications, board certifications in behavior analysis, and even master's degrees. Over the course of this time they became engaged, then married, and are now expecting their first child. The Irwins have been an integral part of the school's growth and have helped to teach many children with autism to become successful learners, better communicators, and independent thinkers. In fact, the work they are doing goes a long way in making a difference in the lives of children with autism. Madam Speaker, I ask you to join me in congratulating the Irwins and wishing them all the best in their future.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, I sit here and I listen to the majority leader, and it strikes me that in my four terms having served in this body, I do not think that there has ever been a time when there are two more divergent views of the direction in which we should take this country. The news today demonstrated that the last quarter we saw a 6.5 percent shrinkage in the GDP in this country, two consecutive quarters of GDP shrinkage, more than any in 60 years. We've got serious, serious economic challenges facing us in America, Madam Speaker, and our priority should be to get this economy back on track, to get people back to work in America. Right now, 650,000 people lose their jobs every month. If you do the math, that is about 15 people a minute lose their jobs. That's real. When you lose your job, you don't have a vision of how you can even get through the month or put food on the table. That's where, Madam Speaker, I have difficulty with the budget being brought forward. Because if our primary responsibility here is to create an environment where the job creators can go back to work and put people back to work, this budget falls woefully short. How can you say that we are helping the small businesses of this country, the true economic engines of America, when we are taxing them and making it more difficult for them to maintain the jobs they have got and increase their payrolls? The other side may say, oh, there is only 3 percent of small business people that actually are impacted by higher taxes.

Mr. CANTOR. Well, 50 percent of the people that get a tax hike here are small business people. How can we expect our economy to rebound? Madam Speaker, this budget creates so much uncertainty on the part of investors, on the part of families, I don't see how we are going to work our way out of these economic doldrums. To say that the energy policy is going to create green jobs, that's great in theory. But I can tell you the cap-and-trade plan that's working its way through this House right now is going to result in a national energy tax imposing up to $3,000 per household every year. How can that help the working families of this country right now? Madam Speaker, we can do better. We can work together to achieve meaningful savings for the taxpayers. We can get off of this spending spree and refuse to put $70,000 per added debt on every man, woman and child in this country. Madam Speaker, we can do better. The Republicans stand ready to work with you in making sure that's the case.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I am proud to recognize the Town of Culpeper as it celebrates its 250th anniversary this Friday, April 24th, 2009. The Town of Culpeper is located at the eastern base of the Blue Ridge Mountains in the Piedmont River Valley. It has a legendary history that dates clear back to the American Revolution when a group of local residents organized themselves as the Culpeper Minute Men Battalion in 1775 and were called upon to fight in the Revolution and throughout campaigns in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Both Confederate and Union troops occupied the Town during the Civil War. In fact, during the winter of 1863 and 1864, more than 100,000 Union troops occupied the town as its strategic railroad location made it an important supply station for both Confederate and Union troops. The town witnessed more than 100 battles during the war and many homes were used for military housing and hospitals.- After the Civil War, the Town of Culpeper grew to become a thriving regional marketing hub. Even today the town continues to evolve. With a population of approximately 15,000, it has rebuilt itself to become a Virginia Main Street Community with a lively historic downtown. It was even named once as one of ``America's Top 10 Small Towns.'' While Culpeper was originally built as an agricultural economy, today it is an important crossroad for business. Culpeper residents will celebrate and honor the town's heritage and 250 years of history with events and activities throughout the year, including a historic costume ball, picnics and parades. Madam Speaker, please join me in congratulating the citizens of Culpeper as they celebrate the town's anniversary and wishing them the best for their continued growth and success.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I hear from the other side that somehow we are cutting real money out of the budget. Well, you are darn right we are cutting real money out of the budget. What do you think the working families of this country are having to do every single day? They are having to tighten their belts. They are having to see about how they are actually going to make it through the month and pay the mortgage and pay the bills. So, yes, our budget alternative reduces the borrowing that goes on, that borrows the money that we don't have. It reduces it by 21 percent. It lessens the spending by almost $5 trillion. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, it is high time that we become responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars. As the gentleman from Wisconsin said, we owe it to the people that we represent. We owe it to the working families, to the small business people, to the single working moms out there who are worried about their jobs and the fact that investors are on the sidelines. We owe it to them to try and reinstill the confidence. We have got to set the example. The way we set the example is to be responsible. We have got to lay a path for the future and show that we are good fiscal stewards of the taxpayer dollars.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin. First of all, Madam Chair, the American people are looking at us today to see if there is actually going to be a real connection between what this place is about and what people are going through every single day in the communities across this country. Job number one for us is to get the economy back on track. And the way we do that is to promote job creation. There is, without a doubt, an attack on the job creators on the part of the budget being brought forward by the majority. How in the world do we expect small businesses to create jobs if we're taxing small businesses? In fact, 50 percent of those individuals who receive a tax hike on the majority's budget are small businesses. And if you've got more employees, you've got higher taxes. That doesn't make sense. Some of the other accusations are, How do you think you can bring the economy back by lowering taxes? Well, you know, how are we going to bring the economy back by just cranking up government spending? At best, what we do in government spending is redistribute wealth. We need to get back to creating wealth, creating prosperity. Madam Chair, there are two divergent views in this House today, there is no question about it. One, the majority's budget is about preserving the status quo, it is about investing in Washington. The other, in Mr. Ryan's budget, our alternative, is about promoting opportunity. It is about promoting what is best for small businesses and working families in this country. America has always been more about opportunity. Yes, we want to promote security--financial security. But the way we do that is to promote opportunity. I hear so many of the old, tired scare tactics coming from the majority: The Republicans--all they will do is ruin Social Security. We have provisions in our document which say we hold Social Security harmless. The seniors are protected.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chair, my wife currently receives compensation from a financial institution that would be covered by the provisions of H.R. 1664. I have determined that this constitutes a direct personal and pecuniary interest under clause 1 of Rule III of the Rules of the House and thus I will be answering ``present'' on any question related to H.R. 1664 put to the House or to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Mr. CANTOR. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. I would like to ask the gentleman in reference to the budget that will be considered next week, that we now have a text of the bill out of committee, and the fact that really some of the implications of that bill still remain very unclear. Specifically, I would like to ask about the cap-and-tax scheme that seems to be continuing to circulate in the discussions in committee as well as publicly in the press, and whether the reconciliation instructions in the bill that came out of the Budget Committee refers to that, and whether we are going to be considering the impact of that scheme on the working families of this country, as they are having a difficult time as it is, as the gentleman knows, in his area, in particular, as it is hard-hit as the center of the financial world. Are our families going to have to expect that somehow the reconciliation tools will be used to impose a national energy tax that some have estimated will cost the average family $3,000 a year? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. I would like to yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. CANTOR. I apologize to the gentleman; I didn't quite discern that. I thank the gentleman. I would ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, about the FDA bill and the regulation of tobacco. And does he expect this bill to come to the floor next week? And in what form does he expect this bill to come, under a rule or as a suspension? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. And I could very easily tell him we will have one substitute from the minority side of the aisle, which is why I am asking how many we could expect from yours.

Mr. CANTOR. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.