Eric Cantor

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I'd respond to the gentleman by saying that we are committed to acting with urgency to bring to the floor a bill under the nutrition title of what was formerly the farm bill, which that title married up with the agricultural provisions. It is our hope that we can get a nutrition bill to the floor, because we believe strongly that the programs under those titles, providing a safety net to the country's most vulnerable, are something important that we maintain and we implement the kind of reforms to those programs that have long been called for by the GAO and others so that we can make sure of the efficient flow of dollars to those beneficiaries who most need it.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I know that the gentleman, in his call for regular order, also knows that the House has its prerogatives, as does the other body. We believe strongly that marriage of the two constituencies of the old farm bill was a marriage that began some 40 years ago. And, frankly, it is the sense of the majority in the House that that marriage makes little sense and that, instead, if we could, as a House, opt to be transparent and look at the policies on the agricultural side the way that we did and then look at the policies under the nutrition title in the same deliberative fashion, that we can actually make for a better product. Now, the gentleman says that the farm bill that was passed was a partisan bill. Certainly, no member of the minority voted for the bill, but I would, and not to rehash colloquy from several weeks ago, say that the same attitude was taken with the old farm bill by the minority saying it was too partisan. We intend to proceed deliberately, looking at policies that make sense in reforming these programs in the vein of trying to get to those most vulnerable the relief they need, at the same time paying cognizance to the fact that we have fiscal challenges we must deal with. We're trying to be about truth in legislating, Mr. Speaker, and that is making sure that the purpose of agricultural policy is adequately addressed, as well as the purpose of the nutrition title and providing relief to our country's most vulnerable.

Mr. CANTOR. Again, not to belabor the point but just to correct the facts and make sure that the record reflects what I did say before and what I represented, I said it was our intention to act with dispatch to bring to the floor a bill dealing with the SNAP program, that portion of which was traditionally the farm bill, and that we intend to be bringing that vehicle to the floor at some time in the near future. I did not say, Mr. Speaker, what it was the gentleman indicated. We would like to say to all of our colleagues that we want to work together on a nutrition title. The gentleman heard what I said before. The marriage of those two bills and policies was done in an arbitrary fashion 50 years ago, as he indicated. There is no policy reason for that to be done. And we're trying to get down to what policy works and the reform of making sure that we pay attention to the efficacy of the programs, getting the dollars to the people who need it, and doing so in an efficient manner takes some deliberative approach. That is why Members on the majority side of the aisle felt very strongly that we should act in the way we did. And we intend to bring a nutrition title to the floor. We're working with the chairman of the Agriculture Committee to get that policy right. So I hope that the gentleman, in his spirit of bipartisanship, will work with us to do that.

Mr. CANTOR. I would say to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that, yes, we are looking forward to the legislative activity for the remainder of this month, as I said earlier, to include appropriations bills. We also look towards the prospect of the other body perhaps beginning to act, as the gentleman indicated, at all on appropriations bills. It does take two to be bicameral. We need that body to act as well. I look forward to seeing how we resolve differences on spending levels and policy differences as we approach the end of the fiscal year, very well aware that we have challenges ahead, and look to find resolution to those, yes, in a bipartisan way and necessarily in a bicameral way.

Mr. CANTOR. The gentleman knows that he speaks of two different things when it comes to spending and when it comes to the budget blueprint. The gentleman and I, Mr. Speaker, have had this discussion several times in these colloquies about why it is that Chairman Ryan has taken the position he has, as has our Speaker and our leadership, in that we don't want to go into a discussion if the prerequisite is you have to raise taxes. That's the bottom line. It's not process. It's substance. It is one of those issues that continues to make the divide between the parties. Frankly, if one thinks that Washington spends tax dollars well, that we should go ahead and ask the hardworking taxpayers to pay more. Our side doesn't believe in that approach. Until we get beyond that, I'm not so sure there's going to be resolution as to a budget conference. It does not mean that we cannot continue the work that we are doing on the appropriations bills and on the other policy measures that are coming to this floor in hopes of finding areas we can agree on. But there is a strong one we disagree on--and that is the issue of additional revenues in an environment where Washington doesn't spend what it does spend well. We're trying to get to the bottom of that, effect good policy, act in a deliberative manner, and are willing to work with the Senate. The problem is the Senate hasn't even begun their appropriations process on the floor there. And that was my point about bicameral and, hopefully, in a bipartisan way.

Mr. CANTOR. I didn't say no relationship. I said the gentleman knows that we're talking about two different things when we're talking about a budget blueprint and the spending bills. Two different things.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman that, as he correctly indicated, our chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), has said that our system of immigration is broken and that he and the members of that committee are fast about trying to look at the complex issues of our immigration system and trying to deal with them in a fashion that is discrete on each issue, with a solution thereto. And in that committee we are in the process, as the gentleman knows, of looking at all of that and intend on making sure we get it right. The chairman has said rather than just doing it, we want to do it right. And we intend to do so.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that the DOD approps bill will be coming to the floor, and the Rules Committee will decide on the structure and how that debate will occur. We will announce that, obviously, upon the Rules Committee meeting.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Monday next, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the Fairness for American Families Act. You know, Mr. Speaker, it's interesting here on the floor to hear the leadership of the minority continue their cries of objection based on claims of politics and process. Now we're talking about substance here. Instead, what we hear are objections about our position, somehow insinuating that we don't care about people's health care. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would say it is exactly the opposite. We're talking about substance and we're talking about ways that we can improve the prospects for quality health care for Americans. For several years, Republicans have been warning the American people about the devastating impact ObamaCare will have on both jobs and health care, and it now appears that Democrats--and even the President himself--are beginning to agree. The decision by the administration earlier this month to delay the employer mandate to 2015 is a clear signal that even the administration doesn't believe the country is ready to sustain the painful impact this law will have. Fortunately, others, including some of the law's most ardent supporters, are starting to realize the same. Just this week, Democratic leaders of the House and Senate were sent a letter from the presidents of three major unions warning that if changes were not made to the Affordable Care Act, it would ``destroy the foundation of the 40-hour workweek that is the backbone of the American middle class.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, to me, that's real. That's not just games. That's real. Now, continuing, these union leaders claim that if the Affordable Care Act was enacted without being modified, it would ``destroy the very health and well-being of our members, along with millions of other hardworking Americans.'' These consequences resulting from employees having their hours cut and their health benefits jeopardized represent what these leaders described as ``nightmare scenarios.'' Mr. Speaker, I'd submit again, that's real. That's not just games. It is now explicitly clear to people across political lines that promises were made and now broken, and ObamaCare is not working. Now, this is the direction we need to take. This is the common ground. If we have bipartisan agreement that things just aren't working under ObamaCare, let's work to improve the situation for Americans. Why is it that working Americans have to suffer the financial burdens of an overreaching, government-run health care system while the same consequences for big business are delayed a year? The White House won't offer an answer to that because, I believe, they've run out of excuses. They've run out of ideas, and now they're starting to backpedal. The Fairness for American Families Act will extend the delay of these mandates to all Americans. No family's health, well-being, or employment should suffer while businesses get a break. I sincerely hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would join us in this effort to bring basic fairness to everyone. I would like to thank Congressman Todd Young from Indiana for his hard work on this issue, and I urge my colleagues in the House to support this legislation.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding. Mr. Speaker, on Monday the House will meet in pro forma session at 10 a.m. 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 few bills under suspension of the rules, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. The House will also vote to delay, for a year, both the employer mandate and the individual mandate under ObamaCare. As the Speaker and the gentleman know, the administration declared last week that they would delay the enforcement of the mandate on businesses for a year, but not the mandate on working families and individuals. We will respond next week to correct this injustice. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the House may consider H.R. 5, the Student Success Act authored by Chairman John Kline. The bill represents a solid, commonsense approach to education to provide our next generation with the education they need to keep America competitive in the world economy. Finally, the House may consider the Department of Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2014 drafted by Representative Bill Young for the resources necessary for our troops. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. CANTOR. I would say to the gentleman, the chairman, the Speaker, and other members of leadership are in discussions about how to expedite an agreement on the farm bill. Certainly it is our intention to act with dispatch to bring to the floor a bill dealing with the SNAP program, that portion of what was traditionally the farm bill. We intend to be bringing that vehicle to the floor at some time in the near future. It is our intention to do so.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the gentleman, as he knows, this Congress, as was the last Congress, has been a Congress that is as committed to the open process as any in recent history. I would say to the gentleman that the Speaker continues to insist that we strive toward that open process to allow for as much debate and exchange of ideas as possible to benefit the American people as well as the outcome of legislation.

Mr. CANTOR. I would tell the gentleman again that the Rules Committee, as the gentleman knows when he was in the position of majority leader, determines the structure of debate, and I would remind the gentleman that the discourse and debate on this floor has been a lot more open than in years past, and I would remind him of that.

Mr. CANTOR. I'd say to the gentleman, it is not correct to say that we have that bill. There was a tax, I believe, that was added to the bill so we do not have that. I would say to the gentleman, though, as he knows, our conference members met yesterday to discuss the path forward so far as immigration reform is concerned. I would say to characterize the agreement on our side, we all believe we need to fix a broken system of immigration and we need to rebuild the trust of the American people and the operation of government in terms of securing our borders and enforcing the law, at the same time balancing that with the history and tradition of our country as one that is built on immigrants.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. on Monday, July 15, 2013.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Washington for his leadership on this bill. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act. For too long, our economy has remained stagnant and the unemployment rate high. And for too long, hardworking American families have been suffering the consequences. These tough economic times are, in part, a direct result of our current energy policies. Over the past several years, the Obama administration has been leading this country in the wrong direction with regard to our domestic energy production by enacting a plan that keeps 85 percent of America's coastal areas off limits to energy exploration. These Federal barriers have cost Americans jobs, surrendered much-needed revenue streams that would benefit the States, and decreased access to drilling areas that would allow us to become less dependent on foreign oil. This administration has consistently been hostile to affordable domestic energy. Just this week, a senior advisor to the President said: The one thing the President really needs to do now is to begin the process of shutting down the conventional coal plants. A war on coal is exactly what's needed. This should not come as a surprise, since President Obama also has said in the past, ``Under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.'' So, Mr. Chairman, we must harness our resources, contrary to these statements, not close them off. This bill reforms our current policy by requiring the administration to submit a 5-year leasing plan by 2015 that contains new offshore areas with the greatest known oil and gas reserves. Some of these areas have been estimated at 2.5 billion barrels of oil, or up to 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. There's simply no reason not to explore these areas with so much potential. This legislation also establishes a fair revenue-sharing system among coastal States where energy resources are explored. Whether it's off the coast of California, along the Gulf of Mexico, or the coast of my home State of Virginia, each State will share a percentage of revenue from energy production off their shores. This bill also ensures environmental protections remain a priority by reorganizing the Interior Department to include the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, charged with overseeing environmental safety. Now, studies have indicated that energy production offshore, in my home State of Virginia, if this legislation is put into law, could create almost 2,000 new jobs in Virginia alone and produce 750 million barrels of oil and over 6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Mr. Chairman, the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act will lower gas prices for working families. It will strengthen our national security, and help create up to a million new jobs across America in the long term. The people of this country deserve a government focused on restoring the faith in our economy, and this bill is a step in the right direction. Again, I want to thank Chairman Hastings for his hard work on this measure, and I urge my colleagues in the House to support this legislation.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment. In 1996, the Congress came together in a bipartisan way to change the incentive structure in our basic cash welfare program that helps needy families. The results were nothing but a success. Within 5 years, welfare caseloads fell by more than 60 percent, and the economic prospects of many former welfare families were substantially improved. America saw increased earnings by low-income families and significant reductions in child poverty. The incentives were right, and even in the depths of the worst economic turmoil of a few years ago, the reforms were succeeding at moving families from dependency into work. Those changes made in welfare reform resulted from a foundation laid before 1996 in which States experimented with different approaches to determine which ones were the most effective at increasing workforce participation and boosting earnings. Prior to enactment of welfare reform, States had been given waivers of the old law to become laboratories of innovation. The amendment by Mr. Southerland before us today builds on that successful approach and will give States the opportunity to test whether the same successful strategies that were used in cash welfare programs in the 1990s will help food stamp recipients gain and retain employment and boost their earnings today. Mr. Southerland's amendment provides for a pilot program, which will allow States, if they choose, to apply the TANF work requirements to their able-bodied working age adult food stamp caseload. States have come forward asking us for the ability to enter into these demonstration projects. But unless we adopt the gentleman's amendment, these States won't be able to launch these demonstration projects. This amendment is well crafted and takes into consideration the availability of child care for mothers with young children and hardship situations like families facing domestic violence. The Southerland amendment also tells States that if they're successful at increasing work participation and families' earnings among the food stamp caseload, they will share in the savings that would otherwise end up in the hands of the Federal Government. If enacted, this amendment will help reduce Federal expenditures, provide assistance to the States, and most importantly it will help struggling families who find themselves relying on public assistance to get back on their feet. Right now, many American families are struggling, and the SNAP program is in place to help these families who find themselves in dire economic circumstances. While this program is an important part of our safety net, our overriding goal should be to help our citizens with the education and skills they need to get back on their feet so that they can provide for themselves and their families. I'd like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland) for his work on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support his amendment.

Mr. CANTOR

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 at 11 a.m.; 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 few bills under suspension of the rules, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business tomorrow. In addition, I expect the House to take up and pass two bills from the Natural Resources Committee: H.R. 2231, the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act, authored by Chairman Doc Hastings; and H.R. 1613, the Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act, sponsored by Representative Jeff Duncan of South Carolina. These two bills continue our efforts to increase domestic energy production to foster an environment of economic growth and lower energy costs for working families. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I anticipate bringing to the floor H.R. 2410, the Agriculture appropriations bill authored by Representative Robert Aderholt of Alabama.

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman knows that the House has acted, that the position of the House is one very close to where the President's public position on student loans has been. We don't want to see student loan rates double. We also want a long-term solution to the problem on the fiscal end while helping students. And if the gentleman witnesses what just happened on the floor, it just seems that on bills where there are solutions and bipartisan indications of support, there seems to be a decision by the part of his leadership, perhaps himself, to say, Hey, we're not going to go along with bipartisan work and success, and maybe we're just going to make this a partisan issue. I'm fearful the same is at work on the student loan issue, Mr. Speaker. I hope that that is not the case, because I know the gentleman shares with me a desire not to allow students to be put in the position of facing a doubling of interest rates if they decide to incur additional student loans. So I would say to the gentleman, his question, we will stand ready to work in a bipartisan fashion--I've indicated so to the White House. The Senate doesn't seem to be able to produce anything. The House is the only one that produced something--very close to what the President's position is--to make student rates variable, to allow for those rates to be capped so the exposure is not what it would be otherwise. Unfortunately, no movement yet. We stand ready to work though.

Mr. CANTOR. I appreciate the gentleman, Mr. Speaker. And allow me to just to respond. The Southerland amendment to which the gentleman speaks is an amendment that had been discussed for some time with the ranking member, with the chairman--the gentleman himself, I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, was aware of Mr. Southerland's amendment. Mr. Southerland's amendment reflects what many of us believe is a successful formula to apply to a program that has, in the eyes of the GAO, in the eyes of the independent auditors who look at these programs, a program that is in dire need of improvement because of the error rates and the waste and the other things that are occurring in this program. In addition to that, it reflects our strong belief that able-bodied people should have the opportunity and should go in and be a productive citizen. That's what this amendment says. It gives States an option. It was a pilot project because it reflects a winning formula from the welfare reform program back in 1996 that was put into place, with unequivocal success--able-bodied people going back to work, working families beginning to have productive income, not just taking a check from the government. There was never an intention at all for our side to say we want to take away the safety net of the food stamp program, absolutely not. This was a pilot project, that was it. It was up to the States whether they wanted to participate to see if they could get more people back to work. Again, consistent with what the GAO reports have said over and over again, these programs are in need of reform. Again, it was not as if this amendment came out of thin air. The gentleman, the ranking member, the entire leadership on the minority side knew this amendment was there. And the gentleman forever is on this floor, Mr. Speaker, talking about regular order, talking about the need for us to have open process, perhaps to let the will of the House be worked and then go to conference. That was what the goal here was, let the will of the House allowed to be seen through, work its will, and then go to conference. And then we would try and participate in a robust discussion with the other side of the Capitol to see if we could see clear on some reform measures to a bill and a program that is in desperate need of that. Mr. Speaker, again, what we saw today was a Democratic leadership in the House that was insistent to undo years and years of bipartisan work on an issue like a farm bill and decide to make it a partisan issue. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that that is the case, I do agree with the gentleman. But I hope that we can see our way to working on other issues where there is potential agreement. Yes, we have fundamental disagreements on many things, but we're all human beings, representing the 740-some thousand people that put us here and expect us to begin to learn to set aside those disagreements and find ways we can work together. Today was an example. The other side, Mr. Speaker, did not think that was their goal, did not think that was an appropriate mission, and instead decided to emphasize where they perhaps differed when we wanted to reform in a certain area.

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would just say, as far as the budget conference is concerned, the budget is something that traditionally, as he notes, has been a partisan affair. It is a document that each House produces, reflecting the philosophy of the majority of those bodies. The budget contains a lot of different issues, two of which I think the parties have disagreed on vehemently over the last several years: taxes and health care. We understand, Mr. Speaker, that the other side rejects our prescription on how to fix the deficit in terms of the unfunded liabilities on the health care programs. We've said we want to work toward a balance. We think a balanced budget is a good thing. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the partisan position on the other side of the Capitol is no balance--no balance--and raise taxes. So when you know that is the situation, there is no construct in which to even begin a discussion. Again, the budget has traditionally been that, a partisan document, whether who is in charge of which House, and then to be a guide by which you go about spending bills after that. The farm bill, frankly, is a little different. It's for working farmers. It's for, frankly, individuals who need the benefit of the food stamp program. We believe that you need to reform the SNAP program and reduce some of the costs, because even the GAO--the independent auditors that we bring in--year in and year out say that that program is rife with error rates, waste, and others that we should be ashamed of. So we put forward our idea through the Southerland amendment to try and reform, put in place, those reforms; but it's still in the construct of the farm bill. Again, to the gentleman's point, we do want to work together, but it's going to have to be about setting aside differences instead of saying, as the minority leadership did today, You disagree with us on that program, we're out of here. The entire farm bill then does not have a chance to go to conference, be reconciled, hopefully reforms adopted, so we can make some progress, according to what even the independent analysts say should be done. It really is a disappointing day. I think that the minority has been a disappointing player today, Mr. Speaker, on the part of the people. We remain ready to work with the gentleman. I'm hopeful that tomorrow, perhaps next week, will be a better week.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 11 a.m. on Monday, June 24, 2013.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome Pastor Bradley Hales of the Reformation Lutheran Church of Culpeper, Virginia, to the House floor. For the past 19 years, Pastor Hales has been focusing on the renewal and revitalization of churches for greater growth and involvement in their communities. As the leader of his church in Culpeper, he has overseen the expansion of a congregation that was once only several dozen members strong to over 240 today. With a great passion and caring for our senior citizens, Pastor Hales was very influential in starting The Place, a gathering center within the church for seniors who wish to meet others and stay involved with their community. Pastor Hales' civic engagement and enthusiasm for improving the lives of others is not limited to the house of worship. Pastor Hales also serves as a member of the Culpeper Human Services Board and teaches Civil War history at the Culpeper Christian School. His energy and compassion have a positive effect on so many, the Culpeper Times named him Citizen of the Year in 2012. Pastor Hales, I'd like to thank you for being with us here today and offering this morning's prayer. Your leadership and willingness to help others is an inspiration to us all.

Mr. CANTOR

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding. Last week, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland was kind enough to note and celebrate my birthday with a colloquy, and luckily, I get to return the favor today. So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say happy birthday to my friend, Mr. Hoyer, and wish him many, many more birthdays.