Steve Scalise

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding and for bringing this legislation to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support as the lead author of H. Con. Res. 119, along with my colleague from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley). Mr. Speaker, the question is real simple, and that is, do we support or oppose a carbon tax? I think the case is very clear by anybody who looks objectively at what a carbon tax will do to the economy. It will be devastating to our manufacturing base. It will kill jobs. I think most devastating, Mr. Speaker, it would raise and increase costs for families all across this country. If you look at this chart right here, it talks about the estimate, what this would do to families. There would be an increase by an estimated $1,900 per family on the cost of things that they buy all across this country. The resolution is simple. It says: ``Be it resolved by the House.'' That is, it is the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to American families and businesses, and is not in the best interest of the United States. ``Yes'' or ``no,'' it is a clear ``yes'' vote if you are concerned about families. Why don't we talk about some of the groups in support. The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste says that: ``A carbon tax would harm the U.S. economy by raising the cost of all goods and services, imposing an unfair burden on the lower and middle class, and deterring new investment, thereby killing jobs.'' Why don't we listen to what the American Farm Bureau Federation said about a carbon tax: ``Agriculture is an energy-intensive sector, and a carbon tax levied on farmers and ranchers would be devastating.'' Then, Mr. Speaker, let's listen to what Grover Norquist from Americans for Tax Reform said: ``A carbon tax would kill American jobs by the millions.'' Why would we want to allow the possibility? Believe me, there are some people in Washington who are talking about trying to bring a carbon tax. To act like, oh, there is no talk about it at all, clearly, there are people here in this Chamber that want to impose a carbon tax. Let's be clear about how devastating that would be to the American economy. Everybody gets to take a position on this today, Mr. Speaker. You are either for a carbon tax or against it. I would urge strong support for H. Con. Res. 119.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 340, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 341, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 342, ``nay'' on rollcall Nos. 343 and 344, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 345.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Virginia for yielding. I especially want to thank my colleague Congressman Higgins from Louisiana for his leadership in bringing this resolution to the floor. And what does the resolution do? It simply says that we stand behind our ICE agents, those brave men and women who are keeping America safe. These are the people on the front lines of removing terrorists from our country. These are the people who, by the way, last year alone, removed 100,000 criminals from our country. And they want to vote ``present''? My colleagues on the other side are talking about voting ``present.'' Mr. Speaker, when you look at the numbers, last year, ICE agents rescued or identified 518 victims of human trafficking. What if those ICE agents would have voted ``present'' that day instead of rescuing those victims of human trafficking? Luckily, Mr. Speaker, they didn't vote ``present.'' They showed up and did their job to keep America safe. What if, last year, Mr. Speaker, those ICE agents who rescued or identified 904 people who were sexually exploited children voted ``present'' that day, instead of rescuing those 904 sexually exploited children? Luckily, they didn't vote ``present,'' Mr. Speaker. They showed up and did their job. We need to stand up for them. We need to stand up for what is important at keeping this country safe. Are we for open borders? Absolutely not. On this resolution, there is one choice, one button to hit if you support these men and women who are keeping us safe, who are keeping us from open borders. That vote is ``yes.'' Any other vote than a ``yes'' vote is for open borders and somehow not supporting these men and women. Let's look at what is resolved in the resolution. We express our continued support for those ICE agents. We denounce calls to abolish ICE. And we support efforts of all Federal agencies--State law enforcement, military personnel--who bring law and order to our Nation's border. The only vote on this resolution is ``yes.''

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 320 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 321.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time and for leading on this important issue. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of my friend from Utah's amendment. As he mentioned, Mr. Chairman, you look at this crisis in our country, and I am so glad that Congress is taking a wide array of actions to address the opioid crisis in our country, because it doesn't affect just one community or another. Everybody might think ``mine is the only problem,'' and then you talk to other Members of Congress from around the country, and you find out they are experiencing the same kind of crisis. And it is widespread. It is killing people every single day. But as we are talking about on this amendment, Mr. Chairman, we are talking about children, children that are born to a mother that is addicted to opioids. I highlight Kemper, a young boy from my district in Slidell, Louisiana. He was born addicted to opioids because his mother, while she was pregnant, was addicted to opioids herself. Now, I wish that this was the only time that it had happened. Fortunately for all of us, Kemper is now a healthy young boy, but he spent his first 11 days of life in the hospital fighting to beat a drug addiction that was not created, of course, on his own. We would like to think that this might be an isolated example, but, Mr. Chairman, this example highlights something the Centers for Disease Control has noted, and that is, once every 25 minutes in America, a baby is born addicted to opioids--one every 25 minutes. That is how widespread it is just for babies that are born. When we talk about this entire package of bills, today, H.R. 6 is going to pull together 50 different bills covering many different parts of this problem. It is an incredibly bipartisan effort. I know, Mr. Chairman, so often we hear about the partisan wrangling in Congress. Clearly, there are divided lines on some high-profile issues, but this is an issue where Republicans and Democrats have come together. I want to thank my friends from both sides of the aisle for recognizing this problem and coming together in a bipartisan way to solve it. This is going to give real tools to our communities so that they can combat this at every different level we are seeing, including treatment, including law enforcement to stop these deadly drugs from getting on the streets so that more babies like Kemper are not born addicted to opioids. Mr. Chairman, I encourage all my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying package of bills.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidablyu detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 264. personal explanation

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that, as there was a concern about a potential Ebola outbreak, we were able to go back and work with our OMB Director, Mick Mulvaney, who worked really closely with us to make sure that this bill was put together properly to address what the President wanted, while also making sure that we were able to respond to any potential Ebola crisis. I especially want to thank my colleagues Jeff Fortenberry and General Don Bacon from Nebraska for making sure that we will, with this bill's passage, still be able to respond to any possible Ebola outbreak. Hopefully, we don't have one, but we will be prepared in that event thanks to the hard work of Congressmen Fortenberry and Bacon. So, overall, Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill to help us reduce the deficit, keep our fiscal house in order, while properly funding those programs like CHIP that were so important to so many of us who did vote for it. I am glad that my colleagues who voted against it are now realizing it is an important program. Maybe they will support it next time. But, in the meantime, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for this bill, and then I further encourage the Senate to take this bill up quickly because it only requires 51 votes to pass, not 60. I would urge full passage. Let's get this on the President's desk.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for yielding. I rise in strong support of this rescissions package. I want to commend President Trump for bringing this bill to Congress, a bill that would, once passed, be the largest rescissions package in the history of our country. This is a process that has been used by Republican and Democratic Presidents alike over decades, and it is an important process to make sure that we keep our fiscal house in order. Mr. Speaker, I know some of my colleagues on the other side are feigning concern over the Children's Health Insurance Program, and most of them, by the way, voted against the funding for the CHIP program in the first place when that bill was before Congress due to a full funding. In fact, we overfunded the CHIP program, and so, as that surplus money was identified, we made sure that that money is going to be able to be used to help reduce the deficit and go to other things. This letter from the Congressional Budget Office confirms that not one child will lose insurance when this bill is passed because we overfunded the CHIP program. Mr. Speaker, I include this letter from the Congressional Budget Office in the Record. U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, May 8, 2018. Re Proposed Rescissions for the Children's Health Insurance Program. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Majority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Leader: At your staff's request, the Congressional Budget Office has reviewed the Administration's proposed rescissions R18-15 and R18-17 for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) that were transmitted to the Congress on May 8, 2018. The proposals would rescind approximately $7 billion. Of this, $5.1 billion would be rescinded from the unobligated balances made available by section 301(b)(3) of Public Law 114-10, and $1.9 billion would be rescinded from amounts made available for fiscal year 2018 under the Child Enrollment Contingency Fund, section 2104(n)(2) of the Social Security Act. Specifically, you asked for our assessment of the proposed rescissions' effect on federal spending and insurance coverage. Authority to distribute the funds to states made available under section 301(b)(3) expired in 2017. In addition, based on information from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CBO projects that the rescission from the Child Enrollment Contingency Fund would not affect payments to states over the 2018-2028 period. For these reasons, CBO estimates that rescinding the unobligated balances would reduce budget authority by $7 billion, but would not affect outlays, or the number of individuals with insurance coverage. I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Keith Hall, Director.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding. I thank my colleague from Florida for bringing forward this important bill, the Protect and Serve Act, and especially, Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate law enforcement week nationally, a time to really thank those men and women who serve and put their uniform on every day to protect us, protect our communities, and keep our country and communities safe. I know all too well just that value and importance of having law enforcement and why they serve such an important role. Nearly a year ago, when we had the shooting in Virginia where a gunman targeted Members of Congress, it was those very law enforcement officers--in this case, our United States Capitol Police--who were the heroes who went toward the danger and confronted and took down the shooter, along with Virginia police who joined in as well. While they were risking their lives for us, they took on gunfire. They were shot themselves. In this case, it was United States Capitol Police David Bailey and Crystal Griner, who were just recently awarded incredible honors from the President and national law enforcement organizations for their heroic bravery. They went towards the fire, but they were shot and continued to take down and confront the shooter. Why this bill is so important is because it hardens penalties against any criminal who would target law enforcement officers. They deserve this protection. We have seen too often, in the last 2 years, where police officers were targeted by people because they wore the badge and because they are part of the thin blue line. We need to stand with them. We need to make it crystal clear that we are going to be standing with them and we are going to have their back. More often than not, they are the ones who have our back. That is why this bill is so important, Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong support and urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) for his leadership on this issue. For so long we have been trying to get a solution and to get proper use made out of Yucca Mountain and the billions of dollars that ratepayers all across the Nation have spent. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bipartisan amendment as well that is brought forward by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating) to bring more light to show the ratepayers of the country what is exactly happening with this Nuclear Waste Fund. But the underlying bill is critical to our national energy strategy because, for decades, going back to the 1980s, this country, through Congress, established that there will be a national nuclear waste storage facility, and yet it has gone unused. The money has gone unutilized, and there is no facility right now that is working. We have got to make this work for the ratepayers all across the country who pay billions of dollars into this fund. We need a national repository for spent nuclear fuel. This bill finally achieves that. I congratulate my friend, Mr. Shimkus, for spending years finally getting us to a point where we can move this bill across the House floor, and hopefully the Senate moves this bill to the President's desk so we can finally resolve this long-lasting issue that ratepayers all across the Nation deserve to have an answer to.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would hae voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 171 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 172.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 150 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 151.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 148 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 149.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 143 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 144.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 145, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 146 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 147.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 142.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 140 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 141. personal explanation

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 135, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 136, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 137.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 110, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 111, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 112, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 113, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 114.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the release of the short documentary film, I Lived On Parker Avenue, and recognize adoptee David Scotton and his family, and to celebrate their inspirational story highlighting adoption. I Lived on Parker Avenue follows the story of David Scotton, currently a law student at Louisiana State University, on his journey to meet his birth parents for the first time and thank them for the gift of his life. Through God's grace, David's birth mother walked out of an Indianapolis abortion facility at the last moment and lovingly placed David up for adoption, answering the prayers of Jimmy and Susan Scotton who adopted David at birth. To honor them for their work to better the lives of Louisiana children though adoption, David, Jimmy and Susan Scotton were awarded by the Louisiana Institute for Children in Families as a Louisiana Angel in Adoption. I ask that my colleagues join me today in celebrating their story and recognizing their contribution to promoting the blessing of adoption.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 98 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 99.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding and for his leadership working together in a very bipartisan way to bring forward RAY BAUM'S Act. Not only is this piece of legislation important to reauthorize the FCC and the important work that they do, but it also is a fitting tribute to Ray Baum himself and, in so many ways, to all of the work that our great staffs do to allow this Capitol to work properly and to allow Congress to work for the American people. It doesn't just take Members of Congress, but an incredibly dedicated and talented staff, and each of us are blessed to have wonderful staffs--I am surely no exception--who allow us to do our jobs so well. The fact that we are using this legislation to pay tribute to Ray Baum and all of the staff of the Capitol, I think, is equally important that we do just this. Mr. Speaker, President Trump challenged Congress to make the Federal Government more accountable to the American people and to eliminate red tape that hurts job creation and economic growth. The RAY BAUM'S Act does just that. First of all, we meet those two goals by doing a number of things. The legislation will reauthorize the Federal Communications Commission for the first time in 28 years. The FCC does important work for our country, especially in the telecommunications arena. I am proud to continue to serve on the Communications and Technology Subcommittee, which is one of the great examples of United States dominance--America is the dominant force in technology--and it is important that we have fair rules of the game. The FCC is that arbiter. The fact that they haven't been reauthorized for 28 years, I think, it is long past due that we get this done. We also make critical reforms that will modernize the agencies with tools that it needs to meet the demands of consumers for the 21st century. This legislation creates an important backstop for our local radio and TV broadcasters who have been completing the final stage of the incentive auction. This keeps America on track to be the global leader on 5G communications by implementing new spectrum policy. This is something our committee has led on. The country needs more spectrum. We have been able to find creative ways to free up more spectrum so that billions of dollars of private sector investment can be used to build out these great networks in 3G, 4G, and, now, 5G so that we can continue to advance technology.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to also thank Chairwoman Blackburn for including the FCC Consolidated Reporting Act that I worked so closely on with Senator Heller for years to try to get this legislation passed. This is included as part of this legislation. This will provide relief to so many job creators and to the FCC by consolidating and eliminating so many outdated reporting requirements. What do I mean by eliminating outdated reporting requirements, Mr. Speaker? How often do we hear about things that are on the books, laws that are on the books that are so outdated and so unnecessary? This is one of the reports that we are outdating in this bill. Right now, there is still, on the books, a requirement that the FCC report on the annual competition within the telegraph industry. Mr. Speaker, that is right. Since Samuel Morse invented the telegraph back in the 1830s, that might have been important in the 1800s, even in the early 1900s; but the fact that today, in 2018, there is still a requirement that the FCC issue a report on competition within the telegraph industry is a glaring example of why it is so important for us to update our laws and eliminate outdated laws. We are getting rid of this ridiculous requirement and a number of other unnecessary and ridiculous requirements like that so that we can free the FCC up to do the important work they need to do. So, again, I commend the chairman for the work that he has done in a very bipartisan way to bring forth the RAY BAUM'S Act, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 94 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 95.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.