Cantor, E REP

<p></p><p>"stunning" upset loss to TP, in part:</p><div><font size="2">7/14 alternet</font></div><div><font size="2">
</font></div><div><div style="font-family: Arial, Georgia, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Looking over the last few weeks of news, if you would seek a single headline that sums up the Hulk-like grip in which corporate America holds the US Congress, this might be it: “Eric Cantor’s Loss a Blow to Wall Street.”</div><div style="font-family: Arial, Georgia, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </div><div style="font-family: Arial, Georgia, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">So wrote The Wall Street Journal, that Pravda of the One Percent, on the day after House Majority Leader Cantor lost his Virginia GOP primary to<b> tea party upstart David Brat. “Since he was first elected to Congress,” the Journal noted, “Mr. Cantor has been Wall Street’s go-to guy on issues big and small… he was a top recipient of Wall Street donations and he regularly stood up for the banks, securities firms and insurance companies.”</b></div></div><div><div style="font-family: Arial, Georgia, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">That’s right: on behalf of poor, beleaguered high finance, Eric Cantor stood up to the little guys who had the gall to have their jobs and mortgages pulled out from under them. Blackstone Group, Scoggin Capital Management and Goldman Sachs – Cantor’s largest campaign contributors – don your mourning weeds and muffle the drums. Never mind his other alleged perfidies and character flaws: it’s the deprivation faced by the financial community that has been created by the end of Cantor’s inside connections – that’s what you and theJournal are lamenting.</div><div style="font-family: Arial, Georgia, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </div><div style="font-family: Arial, Georgia, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Pity Wall Street. At year’s end, your errand boy will be out of office, but probably in a far, far better-paying job than he has ever had before – and most likely in your industry.</div><div style="font-family: Arial, Georgia, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </div><div style="font-family: Arial, Georgia, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">So it’s actually somewhat heartening that Cantor’s loss was due in part to those very same connections. His opponent David Brat told a campaign rally, “All the investment banks up in New York and DC, whatever, those guys should have gone to jail. Instead of going to jail, where’d they go? They went onto Eric’s Rolodex.” </div><div style="font-family: Arial, Georgia, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </div><div style="font-family: Arial, Georgia, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Brat made particular reference to the <b>Stock Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act –the STOCK Act</b> – passed into law in 2012. That’s the legislation, authored by Democratic Congresswoman Louise Slaughter of New York, which requires members of Congress and their staffs to disclose all of their stock transactions – an effort to make sure they’re not trading on insider information gleaned from their governmental wheeling-dealings. (This is the bill that languished on the Hill for years until a 60 Minutes report embarrassed Congress into passing it.)</div><div style="font-family: Arial, Georgia, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </div><div style="font-family: Arial, Georgia, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Unfortunately, before it became law, stripped from the legislation were requirements that family members publicly reveal their stock trades as well as disclosure requirements for companies engaged in gathering political intelligence. And guess who was singlehandedly responsible for gutting the bill of these provisions? Yep, Eric Cantor, with the heavy hands of lobbyists pushing from behind.</div><div style="font-family: Arial, Georgia, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </div><div style="font-family: Arial, Georgia, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">But now it seems the payback chickens may be coming home to roost, for not only is Cantor being shown the exit from the henhouse, and not only does Rep. Slaughter intend to reintroduce legislation regulating political intelligence, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Department of Justice are hot on the trail of what may be its first test case involving insider trading and the political intelligence business.  </div><div style="font-family: Arial, Georgia, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </div><div style="font-family: Arial, Georgia, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">As yet another subset of the monolithic Washington consulting machine, the political intelligence business exploded as companies paid big money -- $402 million in 2009 -- for knowledgeable, experienced Beltway players who know how the system works and can act as interpreters. As Michael Mayhew, founder of Integrity Research Associates, told Mother Jones magazine last year, “Investors started to realize that there was money to be made by knowing what was going on in Washington and knowing it as quickly as possible.”</div><div style="font-family: Arial, Georgia, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </div><div style="font-family: Arial, Georgia, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><b><font color="#ff0000">Political intelligence</font></b> operatives sift through and analyze mountains of reports and transcripts – augmented, of course, by their contacts and frenzied networking on a scale that makes speed dating look like the stately social conventions of an Edith Wharton novel. As the revolving door spins faster than ever between jobs in government and corporate America, information and who you know are the currency that gets you through the tollgate, information which paying clients then use for ever greater profits and a competitive edge.</div><div style="font-family: Arial, Georgia, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </div><div style="font-family: Arial, Georgia, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Although the considerable money to be made as a political intelligence agent has suffered in comparison to the billions hauled in by the lobbying industry, those in PI, as it’s called, have little interference from government oversight and legally don’t have to disclose much of what they’re up to, including the identity of clients or how much they’re being paid. This has outraged Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, who tried to restore the language regulating political intelligence that was torpedoed in the original STOCK Act by Eric Cantor.</div><div style="font-family: Arial, Georgia, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </div><div style="font-family: Arial, Georgia, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“We ought to know who these people are that seek political and economic espionage,” Senator Grassley said. Coincidentally, the ongoing SEC/Justice investigation of PI concerns a former Grassley Senate staffer.  And because it also involves a current House staff member, the case may provide a chance to invoke the STOCK Act after all.</div><div style="font-family: Arial, Georgia, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </div><div style="font-family: Arial, Georgia, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Last year, The Wall Street Journal’s Brody Mullins and an investigative team reported that, “A key source for a private report that sent health-care stocks on a tear… is a former top congressional aide who is now a health-industry lobbyist…</div><div style="font-family: Arial, Georgia, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </div><div style="font-family: Arial, Georgia, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 25px;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“Mark Hayes is currently an outside lobbyist for health-insurance giant Humana </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Innc. His email to Washington investment-research firm Height Securities, alerting it to a government decision that will save the industry billions of dollars, was a final piece of confirmation Height received before blasting a news alert to its clients, according to emails and people familiar with the matter.”</span></div></div><p>=</p><p><a href="http://www.jonesday.com/experiencepractices/ExperienceDetail.aspx?experienceid=29078" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(31, 109, 223); outline: none; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">Majority Leader Eric Cantor successfully defends Virginia Congressional redistricting plan against voters' constitutional claims</a><br style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; outline: none; line-height: 8px;" /><span class="BioExpAbstract" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; outline: none;">Jones Day filed an <em style="outline: none;">amicus </em>brief before the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond on behalf of Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Representatives Rob Wittman, Randy Forbes, Robert Hurt, Bob Goodlatte, and Frank Wolf, in support of the defendants.</span></p><p>==

Ornstein & Mann on Moyers:( 4/13 )  story was BO walked from Boehner budget talks? but actually Cantor nixed; silly story that BO will not schmooze and jawbone/pressure, but it's a systemic problem; BC schmooze did not prevent impeach amd 2 others.  Cantor, CA maccarthy, P ryan and    are young guns: take policy hostage, would not up credit so rating blown (they think they win either way?)

===</p>

<h1><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/08/23/301861/eric-cantor-rails-against-the-epa-in-defense-of-his-biggest-oil-and-gas-campaign-donors/"><font size="4">Eric Cantor Rails Against the EPA in Defense of His Biggest Oil and Gas Campaign Donors</font></a></h1>

<p class="byline">By Climate Guest Blogger on Aug 23, 2011 at 9:09 am</p>

<p><em>by Adam Smith, in a <a title="action fund" href="http://campaignmoney.org/blog/2011/08/22/eric-cantors-op-ed-defending-campaign-donors" target="_blank">cross-post</a> from the Public Campaign Action Fund</em></p>

<div>

<p>House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) had <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/removing-the-obstacles-to-economic-growth/2011/08/18/gIQAYa26UJ_story.html">an op-ed in the Washington Post</a> Sunday attacking President Barack Obama’s policy agenda.

If read with the <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/">Center for Responsive Politics</a> website opened right next to you, the op-ed could also look like a defense of some of Cantor’s biggest campaign contributors.

Some excerpts:</p>

<p><em>There is no other conclusion for policies such as the new Environmental Protection Agency regulations, including the “<a href="http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/">Transport Rule</a>,” which could eliminate thousands of jobs, or the ozone regulation that would cost upward of $1 trillion and millions of jobs in the construction industry over the next decade. The administration’s new maximum achievable control technology standards for cement are expected to affect nearly 100 cement plants, setting over-the-top requirements resulting in increased costs and possibly thousands of jobs being offshored.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><b>Cantor and his leadership political action committee, Every Republican is Crucial (ERIC) PAC, received $180,900 in campaign contributions from<span style=" color: #ED1C24;"> oil and gas </span>companies and $243,098 from electric utilities in 2010 and $169,350 from the two industries so far in 2011. During his career in Congress, Cantor’s campaign committee has received $355,00 from oil and gas interests and $426,404 from electric utilities.</b>

<b>These industries would benefit from a weak EPA, something Republicans in the House have repeatedly tried to achieve since they took power in January.</b></p>

<p><em>There is the president’s silence as the National Labor Relations Board seeks to prevent Boeing from opening a plant in South Carolina that would create thousands of jobs.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) released an opinion in April stating that Boeing broke federal labor law by retaliating against union workers when it decided to move its operations to South Carolina from Washington State, something that would move good paying jobs in one state to a state with lower wages, fewer benefits, and less ability for workers to organize.

Cantor and his leadership PAC received $21,565 in Boeing donations in 2010. He has received $5,000 from Boeing PAC so far this year.</p>

<p><em>Republicans passed a budget this spring, written by Rep. Paul Ryan, that would address our challenges head-on by putting in place common-sense reforms to manage our debt over the short and long term.</em>

<em>The president has acknowledged that without reform, spending on entitlement programs is unsustainable. But he has also made clear that he would never support the type of structural changes to Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security needed to make these programs solvent as envisioned in our budget — even if Republicans agree to his demand for tax increases.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>To “address our challenges,” the Ryan budget that Cantor voted for ended Medicare as we know it, which would be a boon to insurance companies. Cantor can count Blue Cross/Blue Shield as a top career donor, with its PAC and executives donating $94,750 to the Congressman’s campaign committee during his time in Congress. In the 2010 cycle and through the first part of 2011, Cantor and his PAC have received $810,325 from insurance interests, including $55,000 from Blue Cross donors.</p>

<p><em>But the politics of division have reared up, fueled by efforts to incite class warfare. For example, though he often talks about millionaires, billionaires and corporate jet owners paying their “fair share,” behind closed doors the president admits to wanting to raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 per year and families and small businesses earning $250,000 per year.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>If anyone knows about people not paying their “fair share,” it’s Eric Cantor. In the 2010 election cycle, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-donnelly/eric-cantor-and-his-taxdo_b_898298.html">Cantor received at least $254,000 in campaign contributions</a> from the PACs and executives of ten of the country’s most egregious<b> tax-dodging corporations</b>. That’s $103,150 from <b>Goldman Sachs </b>donors, a company that paid just 1.1% of its 2008 income of $2.3 billion in taxes. He got $20,300 from GE donors, who notoriously paid no taxes last year. The list goes on.</p>

<p><em>We well know that the Republican majority was not elected to raise taxes or take more money out of the pockets of hardworking families and business people. We were elected to change the way Washington does business and spends money.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>In February 2010, Eric Cantor <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703575004575043612216461790.html">told the Wall Street Journal</a> that Wall Street donors were having “buyer’s remorse” for contributing so much money to Democrats. A few months later, a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/28/cantor-rakes-in-wall-stre_n_662423.html">Public Campaign analysis</a> found that this turned out to be one heck of a fundraising pitch. “Cantor received more than $460,000 from the financial sector during the second quarter of 2010. That total represents a ’32 percent increase from the average of the previous five quarters.’”

Republicans may have come into office “to change the way Washington does business,” but they did so funded by Wall Street billionaires and oil tycoons—and with any number of efforts to weaken or repeal financial reform, kill the EPA, and keep wasteful oil subsidies in place—it just seems like business as usual.

<em>— Adam Smith, communications director for the Public Campaign Action Fund</em></p>

</div>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/tag/environmental-protection-agency/">Environmental Protection Agency</a></li>

<li><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/tag/eric-cantor/">Eric Cantor</a></li>

</ul>

</div>

<p> 

best leadership pac fundraiser

===</p>

<table id="topContrib" class="tablesorter"><tbody><tr class="rowTint"><td><font color="#ff0000">Dominion Resources</font></td><td class="number">$228,347</td><td class="number">$161,050</td><td class="number">$67,297</td></tr><tr class="odd"><td>McGuireWoods LLP</td><td class="number">$174,118</td><td class="number">$137,775</td><td class="number">$36,343</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td>Altria Group</td><td class="number">$154,250</td><td class="number">$89,750</td><td class="number">$64,500</td></tr><tr class="odd"><td>Goldman Sachs</td><td class="number">$108,450</td><td class="number">$59,450</td><td class="number">$49,000</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td>Comcast Corp</td><td class="number">$101,150</td><td class="number">$60,200</td><td class="number">$40,950</td></tr><tr class="odd"><td>Blue Cross/Blue Shield</td><td class="number">$99,750</td><td class="number">$4,250</td><td class="number">$95,500</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td>New York Life Insurance</td><td class="number">$99,000</td><td class="number">$57,500</td><td class="number">$41,500</td></tr><tr class="odd"><td>Gumenick Properties</td><td class="number">$94,400</td><td class="number">$94,400</td><td class="number">$0</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td>Travelers Companies</td><td class="number">$93,150</td><td class="number">$57,150</td><td class="number">$36,000</td></tr><tr class="odd"><td>Capital One Financial</td><td class="number">$89,050</td><td class="number">$19,050</td><td class="number">$70,000</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td>Genworth Financial</td><td class="number">$86,450</td><td class="number">$56,700</td><td class="number">$29,750</td></tr><tr class="odd"><td>General Electric</td><td class="number">$82,300</td><td class="number">$37,800</td><td class="number">$44,500</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td>Markel Corp</td><td class="number">$82,000</td><td class="number">$82,000</td><td class="number">$0</td></tr><tr class="odd"><td>DaVita Inc</td><td class="number">$77,550</td><td class="number">$40,050</td><td class="number">$37,500</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td>CCA Industries</td><td class="number">$76,800</td><td class="number">$76,800</td><td class="number">$0</td></tr><tr class="odd"><td>Northrop Grumman</td><td class="number">$75,750</td><td class="number">$5,750</td><td class="number">$70,000</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td>Wachovia Corp</td><td class="number">$75,650</td><td class="number">$37,850</td><td class="number">$37,800</td></tr><tr class="odd"><td>JPMorgan Chase & Co</td><td class="number">$74,900</td><td class="number">$34,900</td><td class="number">$40,000</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td>Interface Group</td><td class="number">$74,700</td><td class="number">$74,700</td><td class="number">$0</td></tr><tr class="odd"><td>Deloitte LLP</td><td class="number">$74,499</td><td class="number">$9,500</td><td class="number">$64,999</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table id="topIndus" class="datadisplay"><tbody><tr class="rowTint"><td>Securities & Investment</td><td class="number">$2,166,280</td></tr><tr><td>Real Estate</td><td class="number">$1,670,203</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td>Insurance</td><td class="number">$1,336,199</td></tr><tr><td>Health Professionals</td><td class="number">$1,174,365</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td>Lawyers/Law Firms</td><td class="number">$1,069,942</td></tr><tr><td>Retired</td><td class="number">$1,020,917</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td>Pro-Israel</td><td class="number">$938,530</td></tr><tr><td>Misc Finance</td><td class="number">$681,165</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td>Pharmaceuticals/Health Products</td><td class="number">$661,300</td></tr><tr><td>Oil & Gas</td><td class="number">$551,600</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td>Lobbyists</td><td class="number">$542,589</td></tr><tr><td>Electric Utilities</td><td class="number">$535,904</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td>Commercial Banks</td><td class="number">$531,850</td></tr><tr><td>Retail Sales</td><td class="number">$475,668</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td>Misc Manufacturing & Distributing</td><td class="number">$466,407</td></tr><tr><td>Computers/Internet</td><td class="number">$431,666</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td>TV/Movies/Music</td><td class="number">$402,833</td></tr><tr><td>Health Services/HMOs</td><td class="number">$384,400</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td>Accountants</td><td class="number">$379,509</td></tr><tr><td>Automotive</td><td class="number">$378,300</td></tr></tbody></table>

<h1 class="ruleAbove"><a id="sec" name="sec"> </a>Sector Totals</h1>

<table id="topSect" class="datadisplay"><tbody><tr class="rowTint"><th>Sector</th><th>Total</th><th>PACs</th><th>Indivs</th></tr><tr><td>Agribusiness</td><td class="number">$959,076</td><td class="number">$646,401</td><td class="number">$312,675</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td>Communications/Electronics</td><td class="number">$1,338,949</td><td class="number">$907,353</td><td class="number">$431,596</td></tr><tr><td>Construction</td><td class="number">$782,175</td><td class="number">$376,750</td><td class="number">$405,425</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td>Defense</td><td class="number">$406,250</td><td class="number">$332,750</td><td class="number">$73,500</td></tr><tr><td>Energy & Natural Resources</td><td class="number">$1,374,448</td><td class="number">$886,754</td><td class="number">$487,694</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td>Finance, Insurance & Real Estate</td><td class="number">$7,068,465</td><td class="number">$2,825,377</td><td class="number">$4,243,088</td></tr><tr><td>Health</td><td class="number">$2,644,184</td><td class="number">$1,978,828</td><td class="number">$665,356</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td>Lawyers & Lobbyists</td><td class="number">$1,612,531</td><td class="number">$312,339</td><td class="number">$1,300,192</td></tr><tr><td>Transportation</td><td class="number">$1,070,825</td><td class="number">$707,375</td><td class="number">$363,450</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td>Misc Business</td><td class="number">$2,813,506</td><td class="number">$1,482,355</td><td class="number">$1,331,151</td></tr><tr><td>Labor</td><td class="number">$100,000</td><td class="number">$100,000</td><td class="number">$0</td></tr><tr class="rowTint"><td>Ideological/Single-Issue</td><td class="number">$1,353,622</td><td class="number">$505,027</td><td class="number">$848,595</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td class="number">$1,291,221</td><td class="number">$16,000</td><td class="number">$1,275,221</td></tr></tbody></table>

<p>==

<font color="#ff0000">lcv score below 5: </font>

House Scores below 5:

Alabama Bachus, S. California Calvert · Gallegly · Hunter ·

McKeon Florida Mack Georgia Scott, A. Illinois Schock Indiana

Young, T. Louisiana Alexander, R. · Boustany Minnesota Kline,

J. Mississippi Nunnelee Missouri Graves, S. · Hartzler Nevada

Amodei New York Buerkle · Reed, T. · Turner, B. North Carolina

Myrick Tennessee DesJarlais · Roe Texas Johnson, S. · Olson

· Thornberry <font color="#FF0000">virginia Cantor</font> · Goodlatte · Hurt Wa shington

Hastings, D. Wisconsin Duffy · Petri

---

k street?

<font color="#ff0000"><i>Ties to disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff</i>: Cantor accepted thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Abramoff and his affiliates.</font> In 2006, after the scope of Abramoff’s corruption became public (including his seeming efforts to influence public officials with campaign contributions, overseas golf trips and expensive gifts), Cantor gave about $10,000 of Abramoff-related money to charity.

----

cassidy and assoc http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fec/specials/cassidy/by-recipient/14/

OWS  http://thehill.com/homenews/house/189091-occupy-wall-street-protesters-force-gop-leader-cantor-to-cancel-economic-speech

The majority leader��s office also said it learned Thursday night that university security planned to open the speech to the public and allow the first 300 people in line to attend the speech, regardless of affiliation, raising the possibility that Cantor would be addressing a room full of protesters.

Instead,Cantor published his planned remarks in an op/ed on the website of <i>The Daily Pennsylvanian</i> on Friday afternoon.

In the undelivered speech, he wrote about rising fears that the American Dream is in jeopardy for many people, and he said policymakers must “ensure fairness at every level,” but without resorting to ��wealth redistribution.”

“Instead of talking about a fair share or spending time trying to push those at the top down, elected leaders in Washington should be trying to ensure that everyone has a fair shot and the opportunity to earn success up the ladder,” Cantor planned to say. “The goal shouldn’t be for everyone to meet in the middle of the ladder. We should want all people to be moving up and no one to be pulled down. How do we do that? It cannot simply be about wealth redistribution. You don’t just take from the guy at the top to give to the guy at the bottom and expect our problems to be solved.”

Earlier this month, Cantor drew criticism from Democrats when, during a speech to a conservative group, he referred to the Occupy Wall Street activists in Lower Manhattan as “growing mobs” and criticized elected officials who voiced support for the protests.

Days later, the majority leader shifted his tone and said the protesters were “justifiably frustrated.”

-----

greenpeace </p>

<p>

Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA), District 7

“Safety and environmental concerns are legitimate and must be addressed. That much

we can all agree on.”

House Majority Leader

In top 25% of House members receiving campaign cash from fossil fuel companies7

Coal Plants Polluting Cantor’s District23

Bremo Bluff (owner, Dominion Virginia Power [a subsidiary of Dominion]), in district.

• No mercury controls.

• Minimal nitrogen dioxide controls.

• No sulfur dioxide controls.

Potomac River Generating Station (owner, GenOn Energy), within 100 miles of district.

• No mercury controls.

• Minimal nitrogen dioxide controls.

• Minimal sulfur dioxide controls.

Chesterfield Power Station (owner, Dominion Virginia Power

[a subsidiary of Dominion]), within 100 miles of district.

• No mercury controls.

• Minimal nitrogen dioxide controls.

• Minimal sulfur dioxide controls.

There are 2 other coal-fired power plant within 100 miles of District 7.

Impact Annually of These Three Coal Plants6

• Deaths: 154

• Heart Attacks: 317

• Asthma Attacks: 2,600

• Hospital Admissions: 116

• Chronic Bronchitis: 96

• Asthma ER Visits: 129

Yearly Costs: $1,191,860,0006

<b>Coal Polluters Support Representative Cantor

Fossil fuel industry has given Cantor $655,547 since the 2000 election season. Coal donors include Dominion

Resources ($157,947), National Rural Electric Cooperative Association ($24,900), and NiSource Inc ($18,750).7</b>

<b>

Cantor Represents Coal Polluters</b>

<b>

Cantor voted to stop EPA from reducing mercury and other toxic air pollution from cement plants.12

He is expected to support Coal Caucus members threatening with a bill to strip EPA’s budget to reduce mercury

pollution from coal-fired power plants.14

Cantor voted yes to an amendment in the budget bill that would stop EPA from developing protections from coal ash

pollution.12

Cantor voted yes to keep EPA from making coal companies reduce global warming pollution.2

Cantor voted three times in support of coal-industry amendments on mountaintop removal mining.15</b>

Jobs to Produce Power in Virginia

Wind and Solar: 47613,18

Coal: 1,1174</p>

<p>

<p>

<span class="innertext">harder right, challenged boehner <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64858?RS_show_page=1"> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64858?RS_show_page=1</a></span></p>

<p>

It has come to this: The unreconstructed party of Jack Abramoff and Dick Cheney is now making the cynical bet that it can win a "change election" of its own this year by drafting a new "Contract With America," focused on initiatives for "good governance" and accountability. And come November, that bet might just pay off. "Does the Republican Party lack a clear leader? Absolutely. Do they lack a positive message? Of course. Do their demographics suck? Yeah," says Cook. "But in a midterm election, none of that matters. Because midterm elections are a referendum on the party in power. And to throw one side out, you've got to throw the other side back in."

<font size="+1">T</font>he stage for the GOP's devolution into the Party of No was set by a power struggle in January 2009 between House Minority Leader John Boehner and insurgent minority whip Eric Cantor. Boehner, a 10-term Republican from Ohio who took part in Newt Gingrich's insurrection against Bill Clinton, had angered his party's right-wing base by seeking common ground with Democrats over the TARP bailout. "Boehner's leadership position was in jeopardy," recalls Republican strategist Ed Rollins. "Some of the hardcore conservatives in the caucus thought he was too much of a compromiser." That opened the door for the more hardline Cantor to seize Boehner's power, if not his title — a reality that President Obama himself recognized by singling out the House whip as his negotiating partner during a "fiscal-responsibility summit" with GOP leaders. "I'm a glutton for punishment," Obama joked. "I'm gonna keep talking to Eric Cantor. Sooner or later, he's gonna say, 'Boy, Obama had a good idea.'"

Don't hold your breath. Under Cantor's leadership, House Republicans have pursued a strategy of blanket obstructionism. In addition to stonewalling health care, climate legislation and Wall Street regulation, they have repeatedly voted against the conservative principles they profess to uphold. They lined up unanimously against the stimulus package, even though it included the largest tax cut in history. In February, they tried to block pay-as-you-go budget rules — long a goal of deficit hawks — that would force the government to make spending cuts to pay for any new federal initiatives. And Republicans in the Senate rejected Obama's efforts to create a bipartisan deficit commission — even though it was virtually identical to a plan introduced under Bush. The knee-jerk partisanship has reached absurd heights. Despite railing against Obama's "jobless recovery," not a single Republican voted for the $154 billion jobs package the House passed in December.

At heart, the Republican obstructionism is not only hypocritical, it's perversely cynical. Blocking the president, after all, will only pay political dividends if the country continues to fall apart. The GOP's political thinking, Cook says, is simple: "If President Obama and Democrats do well, we Republicans are screwed. But if they screw up, then we're going to be standing there ready to be the beneficiary." What's most surprising is that Republicans in the Senate have gone along with the just-say-no strategy laid out by Cantor. "Historically, Republicans have been unable to act as a true Senate opposition party," says Rollins, "because there have always been some moderates willing to make deals with Democrats."

 ----

Far from creating the trickle-down economics promised by Reagan, the policies pursued by the modern Republican Party are <em>gusher up</em>. Under the leadership of Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the House's radicalized GOP caucus is pushing a predatory agenda for a new gilded age. Every move that Republicans make – whether it's to gut consumer protections, roll back environmental regulations, subsidize giant agribusinesses, abolish health care reform or just drill, baby, drill – is consistent with a single overarching agenda: to enrich the nation's wealthiest individuals and corporations, even if it requires borrowing from China, weakening national security, dismantling Medicare and taxing the middle class. With the nation still mired in the worst financial crisis since the 1930s, Republicans have categorically rejected the one financial policy with a proven record of putting the country back on a more prosperous footing. "You hear the Republicans say that you don't dare raise taxes in a weak economy," says Stockman. "Ronald Reagan did – three times." Not even the downgrading of America's debt – which placed the world's only superpower on credit par with New Zealand and Belgium – has given GOP leaders cause to reconsider their pro-wealth jihad. In August, as the so-called Supercommittee began its work to complete the debt-ceiling deal by reducing future deficits by another $1.5 trillion, Cantor issued the Party of the Rich's marching orders, insisting that Republicans not buckle under the "tremendous pressure" to hike taxes and instead target spending cuts in "mandatory programs."...

November 24, 2011 issue of Rolling Stone.

<a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109?print=true">http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109?print=true</a>

 </p>

<p>

<span class="innertext">Representing Virginia’s 7th District, Eric has served in the U.S. House of Representatives since 2001. In late 2008, Eric was elected by his colleagues in the House to serve as the Republican Whip for the 111th Congress.

In Congress, Eric has earned a reputation as a consensus-builder and pragmatist respected on both sides of the aisle. The Weekly Standard featured him as an emerging leader among an impressive group of "Young Guns of the House GOP."</span></p>

<p>

<p>

Cantor was first elected to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._House_of_Representatives" title="U.S. House of Representatives" class="mw-redirect">U.S. House of Representatives</a> in 2000, filling the seat from which <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Bliley" title="Tom Bliley" class="mw-redirect">Tom Bliley</a> was retiring. He defeated the Democratic nominee, by nearly 100,000 votes.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantor#cite_note-2000election-12"><span><sup id="cite_ref-2000election_12-0" class="reference">[</sup></span><sup id="cite_ref-2000election_12-0" class="reference">13<span>]</span></sup></a> During his first term, Cantor was Chairman of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare. He has also served on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Financial_Services_Committee" title="House Financial Services Committee" class="mw-redirect">House Financial Services Committee</a> and on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_International_Relations_Committee" title="House International Relations Committee" class="mw-redirect">House International Relations Committee</a> and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Ways_and_Means" title="United States House Committee on Ways and Means">House Ways and Means Committee</a>. In 2002, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Blunt" title="Roy Blunt">Roy Blunt</a> appointed him <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Deputy_Whips_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives" title="Chief Deputy Whips of the United States House of Representatives">Chief Deputy Republican Whip</a>, the highest appointed position in the Republican caucus. He had been in Congress for only two years at the time.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantor#cite_note-no2_deputy-13"><span><sup id="cite_ref-no2_deputy_13-0" class="reference">[</sup></span><sup id="cite_ref-no2_deputy_13-0" class="reference">14<span>]</span></sup></a>

During his first term, he was one of only two Jewish Republicans in the House of Representatives, the other being <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_A.Gilman" title="Benjamin A. Gilman">Benjamin A. Gilman</a> of New York, who had been the only Jewish Republican since the departure of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.William_Green" title="S. William Green">S. William Green</a> in 1992. Gilman retired in 2002 and Cantor has been the only Jewish Republican since.

Cantor has been critical of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Speaker" title="House Speaker" class="mw-redirect">House Speaker</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Pelosi" title="Nancy Pelosi">Nancy Pelosi</a> on several occasions. In an article he wrote for the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Review" title="National Review"><i>National Review</i></a> in 2007, he condemned her diplomatic visit to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria" title="Syria">Syria</a>, and her subsequent meeting with President <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashar_al-Assad" title="Bashar al-Assad">Bashar al-Assad</a>, whom he referred to as a "dictator and terror-sponsor"; saying that if "Speaker Pelosi’s diplomatic foray into Syria weren’t so harmful to U.S. interests in the Middle East, it would have been laughable". He went on to further his point:</p>

<p>"In one fell swoop, the Speaker legitimized and emboldened a ruthless thug whose unyielding support for terrorism has bogged down our attempts to bring stability and peace to the region at every step of the way. The excursion, condemned by most major newspapers, undoubtedly won Pelosi plaudits from her reflexively anti-Bush liberal base."<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantor#cite_note-nr_syria-14"><span><sup id="cite_ref-nr_syria_14-0" class="reference">[</sup></span><sup id="cite_ref-nr_syria_14-0" class="reference">15<span>]</span></sup></a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>On September 29, 2009 Cantor blamed Pelosi for what he felt was the failure of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008" title="Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008">$700 billion economic bailout bill</a>. He noted that 94 Democrats voted against the measure, as well as 133 Republicans.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantor#cite_note-15"><span><sup id="cite_ref-15" class="reference">[</sup></span><sup id="cite_ref-15" class="reference">16<span>]</span></sup></a> He referred to Pelosi's proposal to appoint a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_czar" title="Car czar" class="mw-redirect">Car czar</a> to run the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry_crisis_of_2008" title="Automotive industry crisis of 2008" class="mw-redirect">U.S. Automobile Industry Bailout</a> as "an unneeded 'bureaucratic' imposition on private business".<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantor#cite_note-Rogers2008-16"><span><sup id="cite_ref-Rogers2008_16-0" class="reference">[</sup></span><sup id="cite_ref-Rogers2008_16-0" class="reference">17<span>]</span></sup></a>

On November 19, 2008, Cantor was unanimously elected <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Whip" title="Republican Whip" class="mw-redirect">Republican Whip</a> for the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_Congress" title="111th Congress" class="mw-redirect">111th Congress</a>, after serving under his predecessor, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Blunt" title="Roy Blunt">Roy Blunt</a>, as deputy whip for six years. Blunt had decided not to seek reelection to the post after Republican losses in the previous two elections. Cantor is the first member of either party from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia" title="Virginia">Virginia</a> to hold the position of Party Whip. As Whip, Cantor is charged with coordinating the votes and messages of Republican House members.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantor#cite_note-Cantorelected-3"><span><sup id="cite_ref-Cantorelected_3-1" class="reference">[</sup></span><sup id="cite_ref-Cantorelected_3-1" class="reference">4<span>]</span></sup></a><span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantor#cite_note-no2_deputy-13"><sup id="cite_ref-no2_deputy_13-1" class="reference">[</sup></a></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantor#cite_note-no2_deputy-13"><sup id="cite_ref-no2_deputy_13-1" class="reference">14<span>]</span></sup></a>

The following February, Cantor led Republicans in the House of Representatives in voting against the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009" title="American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009">American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantor#cite_note-thecaucus-17"><span><sup id="cite_ref-thecaucus_17-0" class="reference">[</sup></span><sup id="cite_ref-thecaucus_17-0" class="reference">18<span>]</span></sup></a> and was a prominent spokesman in voicing the many issues he and his fellow Republicans had with the legislation. Cantor voted in favor of a 90% marginal tax rate increase on taxpayer financed bonuses,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantor#cite_note-18"><span><sup id="cite_ref-18" class="reference">[</sup></span><sup id="cite_ref-18" class="reference">19<span>]</span></sup></a> despite receiving campaign contributions from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Assets_Relief_Program" title="Troubled Assets Relief Program" class="mw-redirect">TARP</a> recipient <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citigroup" title="Citigroup">Citigroup</a>.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantor#cite_note-19"><span><sup id="cite_ref-19" class="reference">[</sup></span><sup id="cite_ref-19" class="reference">20<span>]</span></sup></a></p>

<h3><span class="editsection">[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Cantor&action=edit&section=3" title="Edit section: 2008 Vice Presidential speculation">edit</a>]</span> <span id="2008_Vice_Presidential_speculation" class="mw-headline">2008 Vice Presidential speculation</span></h3>

<div class="rellink boilerplate seealso">See also: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party%28United_States%29_vice_presidential_candidates,2008" title="Republican Party (United States) vice presidential candidates, 2008">Republican Party (United States) vice presidential candidates, 2008</a></div>

<p>In August 2008 news reports surfaced that Cantor was being considered as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain" title="John McCain">John McCain</a>'s <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President" title="Vice President" class="mw-redirect">Vice Presidential</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_mate" title="Running mate">running mate</a>, with McCain's representatives seeking documents from Cantor as part of its vetting process.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantor#cite_note-20"><span><sup id="cite_ref-20" class="reference">[</sup></span><sup id="cite_ref-20" class="reference">21<span>]</span></sup></a><span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantor#cite_note-21"><sup id="cite_ref-21" class="reference">[</sup></a></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantor#cite_note-21"><sup id="cite_ref-21" class="reference">22<span>]</span></sup></a><span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantor#cite_note-22"><sup id="cite_ref-22" class="reference">[</sup></a></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantor#cite_note-22"><sup id="cite_ref-22" class="reference">23<span>]</span></sup></a> However, in May 2009, a source who claimed affiliation with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008" title="John McCain presidential campaign, 2008">McCain campaign</a> denied those reports, calling them "a complete and total joke", and blaming "Cantor’s PR people" for being responsible for the false reports.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantor#cite_note-23"><span><sup id="cite_ref-23" class="reference">[</sup></span><sup id="cite_ref-23" class="reference">24<span>]</span></sup></a> Additionally, a book by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Post" title="Washington Post" class="mw-redirect">Washington Post</a> reporters <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Balz" title="Dan Balz">Dan Balz</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_Johnson" title="Haynes Johnson">Haynes Johnson</a> outlining the McCain campaign does not mention Cantor as one of the possible running mates considered by McCain.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantor#cite_note-digital_journal-24"><span><sup id="cite_ref-digital_journal_24-0" class="reference">[</sup></span><sup id="cite_ref-digital_journal_24-0" class="reference">25<span>]</span></sup></a>

The idea for Cantor to be McCain's running mate was supported by conservative leader <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Land" title="Richard Land">Richard Land</a>.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantor#cite_note-25"><span><sup id="cite_ref-25" class="reference">[</sup></span><sup id="cite_ref-25" class="reference">26<span>]</span></sup></a></p>

<h3><span class="editsection">[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Cantor&action=edit&section=4" title="Edit section: Campaign office incident">edit</a>]</span> <span id="Campaign_office_incident" class="mw-headline">Campaign office incident</span></h3>

<p>After the passage of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act" title="Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act">health care reform bill</a> in March 2010, Cantor reported that somebody had shot a bullet through a window of his campaign office in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond,Virginia" title="Richmond, Virginia">Richmond, Virginia</a>. Cantor responded to this by saying that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party%28United_States%29" title="Democratic Party (United States)">Democratic</a> leaders in the House should stop "dangerously fanning the flames" by blaming Republicans for threats against House Democrats such as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Perriello" title="Tom Perriello">Tom Perriello</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Stupak" title="Bart Stupak">Bart Stupak</a> who voted for the health care legislation.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantor#cite_note-bullet-26"><span><sup id="cite_ref-bullet_26-0" class="reference">[</sup></span><sup id="cite_ref-bullet_26-0" class="reference">27<span>]</span></sup></a>

A spokesman for the Richmond Police later stated that the bullet was not intentionally fired at Cantor's office, saying that it was instead random gunfire, as there were no signs outside the office identifying the office as being Cantor's.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantor#cite_note-random_fire-27"><span><sup id="cite_ref-random_fire_27-0" class="reference">[</sup></span><sup id="cite_ref-random_fire_27-0" class="reference">28<span>]</span></sup></a> Ballistic tests indicated that the bullet was fired into the air and hit the office window going down. The bullet landed within a foot of the window.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantor#cite_note-28"><span><sup id="cite_ref-28" class="reference">[</sup></span><sup id="cite_ref-28" class="reference">29<span>]</span></sup></a>

Cantor also reported that he had received threatening e-mails related to the passage of the bill, but he declined to hand over copies of the e-mails, saying that doing so would encourage similar activity.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantor#cite_note-fox_bullet-29"><span><sup id="cite_ref-fox_bullet_29-0" class="reference">[</sup></span><sup id="cite_ref-fox_bullet_29-0" class="reference">30<span>]</span></sup></a></p>

<p>In the 2002 election, Cantor defeated <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party%28United_States%29" title="Democratic Party (United States)">Democratic</a> challenger <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_L.Jones" title="Ben L. Jones">Ben "Cooter" Jones</a>, who starred on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_series" title="TV series" class="mw-redirect">TV series</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dukes_of_Hazzard" title="The Dukes of Hazzard"><i>The Dukes of Hazzard</i></a>.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantor#cite_note-retain-41"><span><sup id="cite_ref-retain_41-0" class="reference">[</sup></span><sup id="cite_ref-retain_41-0" class="reference">42<span>]</span></sup></a><span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantor#cite_note-42"><sup id="cite_ref-42" class="reference">[</sup></a></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantor#cite_note-42"><sup id="cite_ref-42" class="reference">43</sup></a></p>

<p>

<p>

 </p>

<h3><span class="mw-headline">Environmental record</span></h3>

<p><i>For more information on environmental legislation, see the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Portal:Energy_and_Environment_Policy_%28U.S.%29" title="Portal:Energy and Environment Policy (U.S.)">Energy and Environment Policy Portal</a></i>

<h3><span class="mw-headline">Howard Dean</span></h3>

<p>Cantor is a staunch supporter of Israel and recently assailed <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Howard_Dean" title="Howard Dean">Howard Dean</a> for referring to the Republican Party as a "white, Christian party." <a href="http://cantor.house.gov/news/2005/releases/06-08_Howard.Dean.htm" rel="nofollow" title="http://cantor.house.gov/news/2005/releases/06-08_Howard.Dean.htm" class="external autonumber">[1]</a> Cantor is the only Jewish Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives. <a href="http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/072005/cantor.html" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/072005/cantor.html" class="external autonumber">[2]</a>

<h3><span class="mw-headline">Blunt-Abramoff-DeLay-Cantor</span></h3>

<p>Blunt and "his staff have close connections to uber-lobbyist <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jack_Abramoff" title="Jack Abramoff">Jack Abramoff</a>, who is the subject of criminal and congressional probes. In June 2003, Mr. <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Abramoff persuaded Majority Leader <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay" title="Tom DeLay" class="mw-redirect">Tom DeLay</a> to organize a letter, co-signed by Speaker Hastert, Whip <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roy_Blunt" title="Roy Blunt">Roy Blunt</a>, and Deputy Whip Eric Cantor,</span> that endorsed a view of gambling law benefitting Mr. Abramoff's client, the Louisiana Coushatta, by blocking gambling competition by another tribe. Mr. Abramoff has donated $8,500 to Rep. Blunt's leadership PAC, Rely on Your Beliefs," according to the <a href="http://www.beyonddelay.org/beyond_delay/rep_roy_blunt_r_mo" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.beyonddelay.org/beyond_delay/rep_roy_blunt_r_mo" class="external text"><i>Beyond DeLay</i></a> website.

<h3><span class="mw-headline">Background</span></h3>

<p>Cantor was born June 6, 1963 in Richmond, Virginia. He attended George Washington University, received his law degree from the College of William and Mary, and did graduate work at Columbia University. After working in private practice as a lawyer, Cantor was elected to the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Virginia_State_House_of_Delegates&action=edit&redlink=1" title="Virginia State House of Delegates (page does not exist)" class="new">Virginia State House of Delegates</a>, serving there from 1992 to 2000, when he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives.

<h3><span class="mw-headline">Congressional campaign</span></h3>

<p>Cantor is described as "a rising star in the GOP who emerged last year as DeLay's foremost congressional defender." He was in consideration to become <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay" title="Tom DeLay" class="mw-redirect">Tom DeLay</a>'s replacement as House Majority Leader, but <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_Boehner" title="John Boehner">John Boehner</a> was tapped instead, leading to speculation about Cantor's future in the party leadership. <a href="http://www.forward.com/articles/7333" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.forward.com/articles/7333" class="external autonumber">[3]</a>

<h4><span class="mw-headline">House Leadership, Fundraising</span></h4>

<p>"Cantor was named to leadership by Majority Whip <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roy_Blunt" title="Roy Blunt">Roy Blunt</a> (R-Mo.) in December 2002 at the conclusion of his first term in Washington. The honor came with an added duty of establishing and funding a leadership <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Political_action_committee" title="Political action committee">PAC</a> to help other members in close contests," Patrick O'Connor <a href="http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/072005/cantor.html" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/072005/cantor.html" class="external text">wrote</a> July 20, 2005, in <i>The Hill</i>.

"His office set an initial goal of $300,000 for that first year and eclipsed it, said Cantor's chief of staff, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rob_Collins&action=edit&redlink=1" title="Rob Collins (page does not exist)" class="new">Rob Collins</a>. Then he set the ambitious goal of $1 million for the second year and was able to eclipse that by $43,000."

"In 2004, during just his second year in leadership, Cantor raised more than $1 million for his Every Republican Is Crucial PAC (ERICPAC), and he is off to an early start so far this cycle. By the end of May, he had given $279,027 to federal candidates, $127,000 more than any other member of the Republican leadership, according to PoliticalMoneyLine, which tracks campaign contributions," O'Connor wrote.

"Last cycle, Cantor ranked fifth of the six members of leadership in both the total combined receipts that his personal campaign and leadership PAC had raised, with $3.9 million, and in donations he had given to federal candidates, with just over $1 million. But in 2004, the second year of that cycle, he came in third behind House Speaker <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dennis_Hastert" title="Dennis Hastert">Dennis Hastert</a> (R-Ill.) and Majority Leader <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Thomas_D._DeLay" title="Thomas D. DeLay">Tom DeLay</a> (R-Texas).

Cantor has "utilized his ties" to the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee" title="American Israel Public Affairs Committee">American Israel Public Affairs Committee</a> (AIPAC), which he became involved with "10 years ago as a member of the Virginia Legislature," and the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Republican_Jewish_Coalition" title="Republican Jewish Coalition">Republican Jewish Coalition</a> (RJC) as part of his fundraising "outreach." "He has since cultivated those ties during his political ascendancy over the past decade and used them to build the foundation of his national fundraising network," O'Connor <a href="http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/072005/cantor.html" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/072005/cantor.html" class="external text">wrote</a>

<h4><span class="mw-headline">2006 elections</span></h4>

<p>In 2006, the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Democratic_Party" title="Democratic Party" class="mw-redirect">Democrats</a> nominated <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jim_Nachman&action=edit&redlink=1" title="Jim Nachman (page does not exist)" class="new">Jim Nachman</a> to challenge Cantor in his November 2006 bid for reelection. In addition, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=W.Brad_Blanton&action=edit&redlink=1" title="W. Brad Blanton (page does not exist)" class="new">W. Brad Blanton</a> entered the race as an independent candidate. (See <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S.congressional_elections_in_2006" title="U.S. congressional elections in 2006" class="mw-redirect">U.S. congressional elections in 2006</a>) <a href="http://opensecrets.org/states/election.asp?State=va&year=2006" rel="nofollow" title="http://opensecrets.org/states/election.asp?State=va&year=2006" class="external autonumber">[4]</a> Cantor retained his seat.

<h2><span class="mw-headline">Money in politics</span></h2>

<p>This section contains links to – and feeds from – money in politics databases. <crpcontribdata>cid=N00013131&cycle=2006</crpcontribdata></p>

<table class="prettytable"><tbody><tr><th colspan="3">Links to more campaign contribution information for Eric Cantor

from the Center for Responsive Politics' <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.opensecrets.org" class="external text">OpenSecrets.org</a> site.</th></tr><tr><td>Fundraising profile:</td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.asp?cycle=2006&cid=N00013131" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.asp?cycle=2006&cid=N00013131" class="external text">2006 election cycle</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/allsummary.asp?cid=N00013131" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/allsummary.asp?cid=N00013131" class="external text">Career totals</a></td></tr><tr><td>Top contributors by organization/corporation:</td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?cycle=2006&cid=N00013131" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?cycle=2006&cid=N00013131" class="external text">2006 election cycle</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/allcontrib.asp?cid=N00013131" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/allcontrib.asp?cid=N00013131" class="external text">Career totals</a></td></tr><tr><td>Top contributors by industry:</td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?cycle=2006&cid=N00013131" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?cycle=2006&cid=N00013131" class="external text">2006 election cycle</a></td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/allindus.asp?cid=N00013131" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/allindus.asp?cid=N00013131" class="external text">Career totals</a></td></tr></tbody></table>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/search_result.asp?mem=Cantor%2C+Eric" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/search_result.asp?mem=Cantor%2C+Eric" class="external text">Revolving door profile for Eric Cantor</a> from the Center for Responsive Politics' <a href="http://www.OpenSecrets.org" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.OpenSecrets.org" class="external text">OpenSecrets.org</a> website.</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/travel.asp?CID=N00013131" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/travel.asp?CID=N00013131" class="external text">2006 privately funded travel profile for Eric Cantor</a> from the Center for Responsive Politics' <a href="http://www.OpenSecrets.org" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.OpenSecrets.org" class="external text">OpenSecrets.org</a> website.</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/candlook.php?CID=N00013131" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/candlook.php?CID=N00013131" class="external text">Personal finance profile for Eric Cantor</a> from the Center for Responsive Politics' <a href="http://www.OpenSecrets.org" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.OpenSecrets.org" class="external text">OpenSecrets.org</a> website.</li>

</ul>

<p>----

GP 2010

Koch’s PAC heavily favors Republicans: 88% of its contributions went to Republicans during the 2008

election284 cycle; 86% went to Republicans in the 2006 cycle.285 Koch’s PAC also heavily favors Republican

Party committees and leadership. In 2009, Koch’s PAC gave

• $15,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), and $15,000 to the National

Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC).

• $5,000 to Restore America PAC ( founded by U.S. Senator Sam Brownback R-TX); $5,000 to Freedom

Project (founded by U.S Rep John Boehner R-OH); and $10,000 to Cantor For Congress (founded by

U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor R-VA)

U.S. House Members receiving more

than $20,000 from Koch Industries PAC

since 2006 election cycle

KochPAC Recipient (House) Total

Cuellar, Henry (D-TX) $30,500

Cantor, Eric (R-VA) $28,000

Barton, Joe (R-TX) $26,500

Blackburn, Marsha (R-TN) $25,000

Boehner, John (R-OH) $25,000

Kline, John (R-MN) $25,000

Davis, Geoff (R-KY) $24,000

Boyd, Allen (D-FL) $21,500

Boren, Dan (D-OK) $20,500

In addition, Koch owns Georgia Pacific and Flint Hill Resources, employees of which now give money to

Koch PAC; e.g., Georgia Pacific CEO Patrick Boushka gave $25,000 to Koch PAC in 2008 cycle.

Family and Individual Political Contributions

Charles and David Koch, along with their wives, have contributed

==</p>

<h1><font size="4">Eric Cantor on Energy & Oil</font></h1>

</center>

<h2><font size="4">Republican Representative (VA-7)</font></h2></td></tr></tbody></table>

<h3>Cap-and-trade is a national energy tax</h3>

</center>

<p>We differed--radically--from the Democrats in charge of Washington when it came to energy and the environment. Their cap-and-trade bill has rightly been called a cap-and-tax bill. It would essentially amount to a national energy tax that would slam small businesses with higher energy bills and put more pressure on already struggling middle-class American families. The best thing a nation can do for its environment is to generate wealth and prosperity.

There's a better way to protect our jobs and protect our environment--it's offering incentives to develop new energy technologies, not penalties for heating your home and operating your business. We need to protect our national security by developing AMERICAN sources of energy like our clean natural gas and our abundant coal from shale. And we need to offer incentives for our companies to develop the alternative energy we need to make us energy independent.</p>

<center><font face="Arial" size="1">Source: <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/Young_Guns.htm">Young Guns, by Reps. Ryan, Cantor & McCarthy, p. 60-61</a> , Sep 14, 2010</font></center>

<h3>Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.</h3>

</center>

<ul>

<li style=" list-style: none;"><b><i>Congressional Summary:</i></b>Amends the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from promulgating any regulation the emission of a greenhouse gas (GHG) to address climate change.</li>

<li>Excludes GHGs from the definition of "air pollutant" for purposes of addressing climate change.</li>

<li>Exempts from such prohibition existing regulations on fuel efficiency, research, or CO2 monitoring.</li>

<li>Repeals and makes ineffective other rules and actions concerning GHGs.</li>

</ul>

<p><b><i>Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:</i></b>

[Rep. Upton, R-MI]: This legislation will remove the biggest regulatory threat to the American economy. This is a threat imposed not by Congress, but entirely by the Obama EPA. This administration wanted a cap-and-trade system to regulate greenhouse gases, but Congress said no. So beginning in early 2009, EPA began putting together a house of cards to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide. The agency began with automobiles, declaring that their emissions endangered public health. That single endangerment finding has since been used by EPA to launch an unparalleled onslaught. The result, two years later, is a series of regulations that will ultimately affect every citizen, every industry, really every aspect of our economy and way of life.

<b><i>Opponent's Argument for voting No:</i></b>

[Rep. Waxman, D-CA]: This bill is a direct assault on the Clean Air Act. Its premise is that climate change is a hoax and carbon pollution does not endanger health and welfare. But climate change is real. It is caused by pollution, and it is a serious threat to our health and welfare. We need to confront these realities. American families count on the EPA to keep our air and water clean. But this bill has politicians overruling the experts at EPA, and it exempts our biggest polluters from regulation. If this bill is enacted, the EPA's ability to control dangerous carbon pollution will be gutted.</p>

<center><font face="Arial" size="1">Reference: Energy Tax Prevention Act; Bill <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.00910:">H.910</a> ; vote number <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/HouseVote/Party_11-HV249.htm">11-HV249</a> on Apr 7, 2011</font></center>

<h3>Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution.</h3>

</center>

<p><b><i>Congressional Summary:</i></b>Requires utilities to supply an increasing percentage of their demand from a combination of energy efficiency savings and renewable energy (6% in 2012, 9.5% in 2014, 13% in 2016, 16.5% in 2018, and 20% in 2021). Provides for:</p>

<ol>

<li>issuing, trading, and verifying renewable electricity credits; and</li>

<li>prescribing standards to define and measure electricity savings from energy efficiency and energy conservation measures.</li>

</ol>

<p>Amends the Clean Air Act (CAA) to set forth a national strategy to address barriers to the commercial-scale deployment of carbon capture and sequestration.

<b><i>Proponent's argument to vote Yes:</i></b>Rep. ED MARKEY (D, MA-7): For the first time in the history of our country, we will put enforceable limits on global warming pollution. At its core, however, this is a jobs bill. It will create millions of new, clean-energy jobs in whole new industries with incentives to drive competition in the energy marketplace. It sets ambitious and achievable standards for energy efficiency and renewable energy from solar, wind, geothermal, biomass so that by 2020, 20% of America's energy will be clean.

<b><i>Opponent's argument to vote No:</i></b>Rep. BOB GOODLATTE (R, VA-6): I agree that this bill has very important consequences, but those consequences are devastating for the future of the economy of this country. It's a fantasy that this legislation will turn down the thermostat of the world by reducing CO2 gas emissions when China & India & other nations are pumping more CO2 gas into the atmosphere all the time. We would be far better served with legislation that devotes itself to developing new technologies before we slam the door on our traditional sources of energy like coal and oil and and nuclear power. We support the effort for energy efficiency. We do not support this kind of suicide for the American economy. Unfortunately, cap and trade legislation would only further cripple our economy.</p>

<center><font face="Arial" size="1">Reference: American Clean Energy and Security Act; Bill <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.02454:">H.R.2454</a> ; vote number <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/HouseVote/Party_2009-H477.htm">2009-H477</a> on Jun 26, 2009</font></center>

<h3>Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets.</h3>

</center>

<p><b><i>Congressional Summary:</i></b>Extends the tax credit for producing electricity from renewable resources:</p>

<ul>

<li>(1) through 2009 for wind facilities; and</li>

<li>(2) through FY2011 for closed and open-loop biomass, geothermal, small irrigation power, landfill gas, trash combustion, and hydropower facilities.</li>

<li>Includes marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy as a renewable resource for purposes of such tax credit.</li>

<li>Includes cellulosic biofuel within the definition of "biomass ethanol plant property" for purposes of bonus depreciation.</li>

<li>Allows a new tax credit for the production of qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicles.</li>

</ul>

<p><b><i>Proponent's argument to vote Yes:</i></b> Rep. RICHARD NEAL (D, MA-2): This bill contains extensions of popular tax incentives that expired at the end of last year. This needs to get under way. The R&D tax credit is important. This bill includes a number of popular and forward-thinking incentives for energy efficiency. This is a very balanced bill which does no harm to the Federal Treasury. It asks that hedge fund managers pay a bit more, and it delays an international tax break that hasn't gone into effect yet. It is responsible legislation.

<b><i>Opponent's argument to vote No:</i></b>Rep. DAVE CAMP (R, MI-4): We are conducting another purely political exercise on a tax bill that is doomed in the other body because of our House majority's insistence on adhering to the misguided PAYGO rules. The Senate acted on a bipartisan basis to find common ground on this issue. They approved a comprehensive tax relief package containing extenders provisions that are not fully offset, as many Democrats would prefer, but contain more offsets than Republicans would like. Why is this our only option? Because the Senate, which has labored long and hard to develop that compromise, has indicated in no uncertain terms that it is not going to reconsider these issues again this year.

[The bill was killed in the Senate].</p>

<center><font face="Arial" size="1">Reference: Renewable Energy and Job Creation Tax Act; Bill <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.07060:">H.R.7060</a> ; vote number <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/HouseVote/Party_2008-H649.htm">2008-H649</a> on Sep 26, 2008</font></center>

<h3>Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation.</h3>

</center>

<p><b><i>OnTheIssues.org Explanation:</i></b> This bill passed the House but was killed in the Senate on a rejected Cloture Motion, Senate rollcall #150

<b><i>Congressional Summary:</i></b> A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide Tax incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, and to provide individual income tax relief.</p>

<ul>

<li>TITLE I--ENERGY TAX INCENTIVES</li>

<li>Sec. 102. Production credit for electricity produced from marine renewables.</li>

<li>Sec. 104. Credit for residential energy efficient property.</li>

<li>Sec. 106. New clean renewable energy bonds.</li>

<li>Part II--Carbon Mitigation Provisions</li>

<li>Sec. 112. Expansion and modification of coal gasification investment credit.</li>

<li>Sec. 115. Carbon audit of the tax code.</li>

<li>Sec. 121. Inclusion of cellulosic biofuel in bonus depreciation for biomass ethanol plant property.</li>

<li>Sec. 122. Credits for biodiesel and renewable diesel.</li>

<li>Sec. 124. Credit for new qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicles.</li>

<li>Sec. 127. Transportation fringe benefit to bicycle commuters.</li>

<li>Sec. 146. Qualified green building and sustainable design projects.

<p><b><i>Opponents argument for voting NAY:</i></b> Sen. SPECTER: H.R. 6049 would revive important tax provisions that expired at the end of 2007 and extend provisions that are set to expire at the end of 2008. I support extension of the R&D tax credit, the renewable energy tax incentives, and many other important provisions in this package.

Despite the positive elements of this legislation, the main sticking point is whether temporary extensions of tax relief should be offset with permanent tax increases elsewhere. The White House issued a statement recommending a Presidential veto of this bill in its current form. [Vote NAY to] allow the Senate to work its will and pass legislation that can be quickly signed by the President.</p>

<center><font face="Arial" size="1">Reference: Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act; Bill <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR6049:">HR6049</a> ; vote number <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/HouseVote/Party_2008-344.htm">2008-344</a> on May 21, 2008</font></center>

<h3>Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy.</h3>

</center>

<b><i>CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: </i></b>Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008:

<ul>

<li>Production Incentives: Extends through 2011 the tax credit for the production of electricity from renewable resources (e.g., wind, biomass, geothermal, and hydropower).</li>

<li>Extends through 2016 the energy tax credit for investment in solar energy and fuel cell property.</li>

<li>Allows a new tax credit for the production of plug-in hybrid vehicles.</li>

<li>Extends through 2010 the tax credits for biodiesel (including agri-biodiesel)</li>

<li>Allows an alcohol fuels tax credit for the production of qualified cellulosic alcohol fuel.</li>

<li>Denies the tax deduction for income attributable to domestic production of oil, gas, or any related products.</li>

</ul>

<p><b><i>SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:</i></b>Rep. MATSUI: Today's debate is about investing in renewable energy, which will chart a new direction for our country's energy policy. This bill restores balance to our energy policy after years of a tax structure that favors huge oil companies. Today's legislation will transfer some of the massive profits enjoyed by these oil companies and invest them in renewable resources that will power our economy in the future.

<b><i>OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:</i></b>Rep. SMITH of Texas: I oppose H.R. 5351. While it is well and good to encourage alternative energy development, Congress should not do so by damaging our domestic oil and gas industry. In 2006 all renewable energy sources provided only 6% of the US domestic energy supply. In contrast, oil and natural gas provided 58% of our domestic energy supply. The numbers don't lie. Oil and natural gas fuel our economy and sustain our way of life.

Furthermore, almost 2 million Americans are directly employed in the oil and natural gas industry. Punishing one of our Nation's most important industries does not constitute a national energy policy.

<b><i>LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:</i></b>Bill passed House, 236-182</p>

<center><font face="Arial" size="1">Reference: Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act; Bill <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.05351:">H.R.5351</a> ; vote number <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/HouseVote/Party_08-HR5351.htm">08-HR5351</a> on Feb 12, 2008</font></center>

<h3>Voted NO on investing in homegrown biofuel.</h3>

</center>

H.R.3221: New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act: Moving toward greater energy independence and security, developing innovative new technologies, reducing carbon emissions, creating green jobs, protecting consumers, increasing clean renewable energy production, modernizing our energy infrastructure, and providing tax incentives for the production of renewable energy and energy conservation.

<p><b>Proponents support voting YES because:</b>

Rep. PELOSI: This bill makes the largest investment in homegrown biofuels in history. We know that America's farmers will fuel America's independence. We will send our energy dollars to middle America, not to the Middle East.

Rep. TIERNEY: This bill incorporates the Green Jobs Act, which will make $120 million a year available to begin training workers in the clean energy sector. 35,000 people per year can benefit from vocational education for "green-collar jobs" that can provide living wages & upward mobility.

<b>Opponents recommend voting NO because:</b>

Rep. SHIMKUS: I'm upset about the bill because it has no coal provisions. What about coal-to-liquid jobs? Those are real jobs with great wages. Energy security? We have our soldiers deployed in the Middle East because it's an important national security interest. Why? We know why. Crude oil. How do we decrease that importance of the Persian Gulf region? We move to coal-to-liquid technologies. What is wrong with this bill? Everything. No soy diesel. No ethanol. No coal. Nothing on nuclear energy. No expansion. There is no supply in this bill. Defeat this bill.

Rep. RAHALL: [This bill omits a] framework to sequester carbon dioxide to ensure the future use of coal in an environmentally responsible fashion. We can talk about biofuels all we want, but the fact is that coal produces half of our electricity for the foreseeable future. We must aggressively pursue technologies to capture and store the carbon dioxide.</p>

<center><font face="Arial" size="1">Reference: New Direction for Energy Independence; Bill <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.03221:">HR3221</a> ; vote number <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/HouseVote/Party_2007-0832.htm">2007-0832</a> on Aug 4, 2007</font></center>

<h3>Voted YES on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC.</h3>

</center>

Amends the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to declare it to be illegal for any foreign states to act collectively to limit the US price or distribution of oil, natural gas, or any other petroleum product. Denies a foreign state engaged in such conduct sovereign immunity from the jurisdiction of US courts

<p><b>Proponents support voting YES because:</b>

Gas prices have now reached an all-time record high, $3.27 a gallon, topping even the 1981 spike. This won't be the end of these skyrocketing price hikes either.

OPEC oil exports represent 70% of all the oil traded internationally. For years now, OPEC's price-fixing conspiracy has unfairly driven up the price and cost of imported crude oil to satisfy the greed of oil exporters. We have long decried OPEC, but have done little or nothing to stop this. The time has come.

This bill makes fixing oil prices or illegal under US law, just as it would be for any company engaging in the same conduct. It attempts to break up this cartel and subject these colluders and their anticompetitive practices to the antitrust scrutiny that they so richly deserve.

<b>Opponents support voting NO because:</b>

 </p>

<ul>

<li>We can only affect OPEC subsidiaries in the US. So the result of this bill would be to hurt US companies while not affecting OPEC itself.</li>

<li>OPEC is a cartel, but we have to deal with it diplomatically. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was designed for US monopolies, not international state-run cartels.</li>

<li>We should focus on domestic policies to affect gas prices. We cannot respond to a short-term crisis with a long-term response.</li>

</ul>

<center><font face="Arial" size="1">Reference: No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act (NOPEC); Bill <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.02264:">H R 2264</a> ; vote number <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/HouseVote/Party_2007-398.htm">2007-398</a> on May 22, 2007</font></center>

<h3>Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies.</h3>

</center>

Creating Long-term Energy Alternatives for the Nation (CLEAN) Act

<ul>

<li>Title I: Ending Subsidies for Big Oil Act--denying a deduction for income attributable to domestic production of oil, natural gas, or their related primary products.</li>

<li>Title II: Royalty Relief for American Consumers Act--to incorporate specified price thresholds for royalties on oil & gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico.</li>

<li>Title III: Strategic Energy Efficiency And Renewables Reserve--makes the Reserve available to accelerate the use of clean domestic renewable energy resources and alternative fuels.</li>

</ul>

<p><b>Proponents support voting YES because:</b>

This legislation seeks to end the unwarranted tax breaks & subsidies which have been lavished on Big Oil over the last several years, at a time of record prices at the gas pump and record oil industry profits. Big Oil is hitting the American taxpayer not once, not twice, but three times. They are hitting them at the pump, they are hitting them through the Tax Code, and they are hitting them with royalty holidays put into oil in 1995 and again in 2005.

It is time to vote for the integrity of America's resources, to vote for the end of corporate welfare, to vote for a new era in the management of our public energy resources.

<b>Opponents support voting NO because:</b>

I am wearing this red shirt today, because this shirt is the color of the bill that we are debating, communist red. It is a taking. It will go to court, and it should be decided in court.

This bill will increase the competitive edge of foreign oil imported to this country. If the problem is foreign oil, why increase taxes and make it harder to produce American oil and gas? That makes no sense. We should insert taxes on all foreign oil imported. That would raise your money for renewable resources. But what we are doing here today is taxing our domestic oil. We are raising dollars supposedly for renewable resources, yet we are still burning fossil fuels.</p>

<center><font face="Arial" size="1">Reference: Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation(CLEAN); Bill <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.00006:">HR 6 ("First 100 hours")</a> ; vote number <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/HouseVote/Party_2007-040.htm">2007-040</a> on Jan 18, 2007</font></center>

<h3>Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore.</h3>

</center>

Vote to amend a bill providing for exploration & production of mineral resources on the outer Continental Shelf. The underlying bill revises the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act's guidelines for natural gas lease administration. Voting YES on the amendment would maintain the 25-year moratorium on oil and gas drilling in environmentally sensitive areas offshore. Voting NO on the amendment would lift the 25-year moratorium, and establish incentives to renegotiate existing leases that fail to include market-based price caps.

<p><b>Proponents support voting YES because:</b>

This amendment would preserve the longstanding moratorium so important to coastal States. The amendment would also preserve the underlying bill's one redeeming feature, the renegotiating of the cash-cow leases now pouring billions of dollars into already stuffed oil industry coffers.

We have only 5% of the world's population, but 30% of the world's automobiles, and we produce 45% of the world's automotive carbon dioxide emissions. This addiction harms our environment, our economy and our national security. This underlying bill attempts to bribe coastal States into drilling off their shores by promising them a lot more money.

<b>Opponents support voting NO because:</b>

For 30 years, opponents of American energy have cloaked their arguments in an environmental apocalypse. They have tried to make the argument that no matter what we do, it will destroy the environment.

This amendment takes out all of the energy production. It is a callous disregard for the jobs that have been lost over the last 30 years of following an anti-energy policy. The people who work in oil and gas, their jobs are in the Middle East or Canada. We have exported their jobs. If this amendment passes, we are going to send the rest of them. We should know how important it is to create jobs in this country, to create clean natural gas in this country, so that it can be the bridge to the future.</p>

<center><font face="Arial" size="1">Reference: Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act; Bill <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.04761:">H R 4761</a> ; vote number <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/HouseVote/Party_2006-354.htm">2006-354</a> on Jun 29, 2006</font></center>

<h3>Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries.</h3>

</center>

<ul>

<li style=" list-style: none;">Voting YES would allow floor debate on H.R.5254, the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act, which provides for the following:</li>

<li>The EPA, upon the request of a state governor, shall provide scheduling and financial assistance relevant to consideration of federal refinery authorizations.</li>

<li>The President shall designate at least three closed military installations as potentially suitable for the construction of a refinery.</li>

<li>Requires that at least one such site be designated as potentially suitable for construction of a refinery to refine biomass in order to produce biofuel.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li style=" list-style: none;">Proponents of the resolution say:</li>

<li>Over the last several years, we have seen gasoline prices increase steadily</li>

<li>In the last 24 years, our refinery capacity has dropped from 19 million barrels a day to less than 17 million barrels a day.</li>

<li>We must make build new refineries to meet our current demand and to prevent a loss of capacity due to another hurricane, or a terrorist attack</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li style=" list-style: none;">Opponents of the resolution say:</li>

<li>$3 a gallon gas is a problem, but so is global warming, and so is our dependence on fossil fuels.</li>

<li>Unfortunately, this bill represents another missed opportunity for strategic long-term national energy policy.</li>

<li>There have been no new refineries built in the US since 1976, but there has not been one convincing example of a situation where the permitting process prevented construction of a refinery.</li>

<li>We should reduce demand by promoting energy conservation and fuel efficient forms of transportation, and work to develop renewable sources of fuel.</li>

<li>Taken together, these will help America move towards energy independence. And we are going to stop providing subsidies to companies that are making record profits.</li>

</ul>

<center><font face="Arial" size="1">Reference: Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act; Bill <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.res.00842:">HR 5254 resolution H RES 842</a> ; vote number <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/HouseVote/Party_2006-228.htm">2006-228</a> on Jun 7, 2006</font></center>

<h3>Voted YES on authorizing construction of new oil refineries.</h3>

</center>

To expedite the construction of new refining capacity in the United States, to provide reliable and affordable energy for the American people, and for other purposes including:

<ul>

<li>Authorizing the President to designate sites on Federal land for construction of new oil refineries, including at least three on closed military bases</li>

<li>Allowing the Secretary of Energy to enter into contracts with non-Federal entities to construct or restore new refineries that use crude oil or coal to produce gasoline or other fuel</li>

<li>Establishing a program to encourage carpools by giving grants to states and to evaluate the use of the Internet to link riders with carpools, assist employers establish carpool programs, and market existing programs</li>

<li>Authorizing any facility to use biomass debris as fuel if it meets certain standards, such as resulting from a major disaster</li>

<li>$2.5 million to create an education campaign about gasoline conservation</li>

</ul>

<center><font face="Arial" size="1">Reference: Gasoline for Americas Security Act; Bill <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.03893:">HR 3893</a> ; vote number <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/HouseVote/Party_2005-519.htm">2005-519</a> on Oct 7, 2005</font></center>

<h3>Voted YES on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy.</h3>

</center>

Vote to pass a bill that would put into practice a comprehensive national policy for energy conservation, research and development. The bill would authorize o $25.7 billion tax break over a 10-year period. The tax breaks would include $11.9 billion to promote oil and gas production, $2.5 billion for "clean coal" programs, $2.2 billion in incentives for alternative motor vehicles, and $1.8 billion for the electric power industry and other businesses. A natural gas pipeline from Alaska would be authorized an $18 billion loan guarantee. It would add to the requirement that gasoline sold in the United States contain a specified volume of ethanol. Makers of the gasoline additive MTBE would be protected from liability. They would be required though to cease production of the additive by 2015. Reliability standards would be imposed for electricity transmissions networks, through this bill. The bill would also ease the restrictions on utility ownership and mergers.

<center><font face="Arial" size="1">Reference: Energy Policy Act of 2004; Bill <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.04503:">HR 4503</a> ; vote number <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/HouseVote/Party_2004-241.htm">2004-241</a> on Jun 15, 2004</font></center>

<h3>Voted YES on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy.</h3>

</center>

Energy Omnibus bill: Vote to adopt the conference report on the bill that would put into practice a comprehensive national policy for energy conservation, research and development. The bill would authorize a $25.7 billion tax break over a 10-year period. The tax breaks would include $11.9 billion to promote oil and gas production, $2.5 billion for "clean coal" programs, $2.2 billion in incentives for alternative motor vehicles, and $1.8 billion for the electric power industry and other businesses. A natural gas pipeline from Alaska would be authorized an $18 billion loan guarantee. The bill would call for producers of Ethanol to double their output. Makers of the gasoline additive MTBE would be protected from liability. They would be required though to cease production of the additive by 2015. Reliability standards would be imposed for electricity transmissions networks, through this bill. The bill would also ease the restrictions on utility ownership and mergers.

<center><font face="Arial" size="1">Reference: Bill sponsored by Tauzin, R-LA; Bill <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.00006:">HR.6</a> ; vote number <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/HouseVote/Party_2003-630.htm">2003-630</a> on Nov 18, 2003</font></center>

<h3>Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels.</h3>

</center>

Require a combined corporate average fuel efficiency [CAFE] standard for passenger automobiles and light trucks, including sport utility vehicles, of 26 mpg in 2005 and of 27.5 mpg in 2007. It also would offer incentives for alternative fuel vehicles.

<center><font face="Arial" size="1">Bill <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.4:">HR 4</a> ; vote number <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/HouseVote/Party_2001-311.htm">2001-311</a> on Aug 1, 2001</font></center>

<h3>Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR.</h3>

</center>

Amendment to maintain the current prohibition on oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by striking language opening the reserve up to development.

<h3>Rated 0% by the <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/Note-CAF.asp">CAF</a>, indicating opposition to energy independence.</h3>

</center>

Cantor scores 0% by CAF on energy issues

<p><b><i>OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 CAF scores as follows: </i></b></p>

<ul>

<li>0% - 30%: opposition of energy independence (approx. 206 members)</li>

<li>30% - 70%: mixed record on energy independence (approx. 77 members)</li>

<li>70%-100%: support for energy independence (approx. 183 members)</li>

</ul>

<b><i>About the CAF (from their website, www.ourfuture.org): </i></b>

<p>The Campaign for America's Future (CAF) is a center for ideas and action that works to build an enduring majority for progressive change. The Campaign advances a progressive economic agenda and a vision of the future that works for the many, not simply the few. The Campaign is leading the fight for America's priorities--against privatization of Social Security, for investment in energy independence, good jobs and a sustainable economy, for an ethical and accountable Congress and for high quality public education.

<b><i>About the CAF report, "Energy Independence: Record vs. Rhetoric": </i></b>

Energy independence has surfaced as a defining issue in the current elections. Are most candidates and both parties truly committed? To help distinguish the demonstrated level of support for homegrown, clean energy alternatives, we examined the voting records of current U.S. Representatives and Senators on bills vital to promoting those interests. Key pieces of legislation included goals for independence, and subsidies for the development of alternatives compared to subsidies for drilling and digging. We then compared votes on these issues with campaign contributions from major oil interests. The results show strong inverse correlations between political contributions from big oil and votes for energy independence.</p>

<center><font face="Arial" size="1">Source: CAF "Energy Independence" Report <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/Notebook/Note_06n-CAF.htm">06n-CAF</a> on Dec 31, 2006</font></center>

<h3>Bar greenhouse gases from Clean Air Act rules.</h3>

</center>

Cantor signed H.R.391

<ol>

<li style=" list-style: none;">Amends the Clean Air Act to:</li>

<li>exclude from the definition of the term "air pollutant" carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, or sulfur hexafluoride; and</li>

<li>declare that nothing in the Act shall be treated as authorizing or requiring the regulation of climate change or global warming.</li>

</ol>

<center><font face="Arial" size="1">Source: Clean Air Act Amendment <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/Notebook/Note_09-HR391.htm">09-HR391</a> on Jan 9, 2009</font></center>

<h3>Signed the No Climate Tax Pledge by <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/Note-AFP.asp">AFP</a>.</h3>

</center>

Cantor signed the No Climate Tax Pledge

<p>No Climate Tax Pledge: "I pledge to the taxpayers of my state, and to the American people, that I will oppose any legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue."

Sponsoring organizations: Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEU); National Taxpayers Union (NTU); Institute for Liberty Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is a nationwide organization of citizen-leaders committed to advancing every individual's right to economic freedom and opportunity. AFP believes reducing the size and intrusiveness of government is the best way to promote individual productivity and prosperity for all Americans.</p>

<center><font face="Arial" size="1">Source: AFP website <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/Notebook/Note_10-AFP.htm">10-AFP</a> on Nov 2, 2010</font></center>

<ul>

</li><li><font face="Arial, Arial, Helvetica" size="2"><b><big>Click here for definitions & background <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/Background_Energy+Oil.htm">information on Energy & Oil</a>.</big></b></font></li>

<li><font face="Arial, Arial, Helvetica" size="2"><b><big><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantor">Click here</a> for a profile of Eric Cantor.</big></b></font></li>

<li><font face="Arial, Arial, Helvetica" size="2"><b><big>Click here for <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/va/Eric_Cantor_HouseMatch.htm">HouseMatch answers by Eric Cantor</a>.</big></b></font></li>

<li><font face="Arial, Arial, Helvetica" size="2"><b><big>Click here for a <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/va/Eric_Cantor.htm">summary of Eric Cantor's positions</a> on all issues.</big></b></font></li>

<li><font face="Arial, Arial, Helvetica" size="2"><b><big>Click here for issue positions of <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/states/VA_Energy+Oil.htm">other VA politicians</a>. </big></b></font></li>

</ul>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</center>

</li>

</ul>

<p></p>

<p>

atlantic: </p>

<h1 class="headline">The 'Young Guns' Are Here: Cantor, Ryan, McCarthy Hit Media Tour</h1>

<div class="metadata"><span class="authors"><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/chris-good/" class="author" rel="author">Chris Good</a></span> <span class="date last-child">Sep 14 2010, </span>The "Young Guns" are here: <b>House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, Budget Committee Ranking Member Paul Ryan, and National Republican Congressional Committee recruitment chair Kevin McCarthy </b>are posing themselves as "the leader," "the thinker," and "the strategist" in a new book the three have released today, pitching the co-authored "Young Guns: The Next Generation of American Leaders" in a media tour that began this morning with a stop on NBC's "Today":</div>

<div>

</div>

<div>

<div>Released Sept. 14, the 191-page paperback was penned jointly by House Republican leaders Eric Cantor of Virginia, Kevin McCarthy of California, and Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. The book lays out broad conservative talking points and tackles Democrats on health care legislation, taxes, and social security. It makes little to no mention of fellow Republican heavy-hitters John Boehner (R-OH) and Mike Pence (R-IN), instead showcasing "young, reform-minded Republicans" as the key to overhauling Washington.</div>

</div>

<div>

</div>

<div>

<div>The congressmen founded the book's namesake organization, Young Guns, during the 2007-2008 election cycle. By the end of Aug. 2010, the National Republican Congressional Committee's associated program, which recruits and assists congressional hopefuls to "build a foundation for victory," showcased more than fifty conservatives - of all ages - with "young gun" status.</div>

</div>

<div>

</div>

<div>

<div>"We were fired in 2006, and part of what this is about, Young Guns, is finding candidates that will run on ideas, and actually solve problems using conservative beliefs," McCarthy, who is the chief recruiter for House Republican candidates, told NBC's TODAY Show Tuesday morning. "I think that's one of the fundamental differences you'll find in this election."</div>

</div>

</blockquote>

<div>

</div>

<p>Read the full story from <a href="http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/09/14/three-republican-young-guns-fire-book">Fox News</a>. See the book cover and description on the <a href="http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Young-Guns/Eric-Cantor/e/9781451607345">Barnes & Noble site</a>. It's a clear effort by these three lawmakers to raise their profiles and promote their brand of House leadership...which could, one easily surmises, get pitted against Minority Leader John Boehner if Republicans take over the House and Cantor runs for Speaker. The Washington Post's <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/13/AR2010091306974.html">Perry Bacon, Jr. reports</a> that Cantor is disavowing a "power grab" with the new book.</p>

</div>