Steve Scalise

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I thank you. I appreciate my colleague from Alabama's (Mr. Aderholt) comments. Of course, Mr. Speaker, so much of the national attention on Hurricane Katrina focused on the city of New Orleans. We all remember the pictures, the visuals, of people that were displaced, of floodwaters that sat, in many cases, for 2 or 3 weeks. But then, of course, we also remember the many things that happened along the way for people who rebuilt, who came back, who persevered. My colleague and friend who represents the city of New Orleans along with me obviously was deeply involved in a lot of those recovery efforts. I want to yield now to my colleague from New Orleans (Mr. Richmond).

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, if you look at what is happening in our economy right now, why the economy is struggling so badly through this Obama economy, it is because of radical regulations coming out of Washington. Every time I go home and meet with small businesses in my district in southeast Louisiana, the common thread is that it is not the local business down the street that is the main threat to their business. The main threat to small businesses throughout my district--and I hear it from my colleagues as well across the country--are the thousands and thousands of pages of these radical regulations that come out of these Federal agencies, unelected bureaucrats that are imposing, in essence, new law that is making it harder to create jobs in this country. Hard-working taxpayers deserve a Federal Government that is more efficient, more effective, and more accountable; and that is what the REINS Act does, Mr. Chairman. The REINS Act forces real accountability in regulations that are coming out of Washington. Whether it is the IRS or the EPA or the NLRB or HHS or CMS, the alphabet soup of Federal agencies that is crippling our economy with all of these regulations is what is holding our economy back. Why not have a mechanism that says, if a rule is being proposed by a Federal agency by an unelected bureaucrat that is so important that it is going to have a major impact on our economy, shouldn't it at least go through the transparency of coming before the elected representatives of the people, Mr. Chairman? Why not have these conversations on C-SPAN, not in the dark annals of some Federal bureaucratic agency in Washington, some unelected bureaucrat that is going to wake up one morning and say they are going to create a new law that is going to devastate our economy? Shouldn't that at least go through public hearings? Shouldn't it have to be passed by the elected people in Congress who will be held accountable every 2 years for the consequences of those regulations? Let's stop crippling our economy. Let's stop holding our economy back with these radical regulations, Mr. Chairman. Let's pass the REINS Act and bring real accountability into the process of creating regulations in Washington.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding and for his leadership in bringing the Steve Gleason Act to the floor. Mr. Speaker, Steve Gleason is somebody who has served as an inspiration for the people of Louisiana for a long time, going back, of course, to the 2006 game when the Superdome was reopened after Hurricane Katrina. That night was really one of the galvanizing moments that helped bring the city of New Orleans back, that helped reinspire the people of New Orleans to come back. It was Steve Gleason who blocked the punt at the end of the game to win the game. I was in the Dome that night. I know my wife, Jennifer, and I were as euphoric as everybody in that building. The reason that Steve Gleason inspires people today, Mr. Speaker, is not because of what he did on the football field. It is because of what he has done to serve as an inspiration for people all across the country, people with all disabilities, since he was diagnosed with ALS, with Lou Gehrig's Disease. What he has done is to go out and show that he is able to exhibit his voice because of the speech-generating device that he has. This isn't something that he just wants for himself. He wants this for all people who have something to say, who have that same voice, to be able to go out and inspire other people. When CMS made the change in policy that started to take away that voice, he spoke up, as so many others did, and said, ``We need to reverse this.'' I commend Senator Vitter for bringing the legislation forward that we are debating that was passed through the Senate, for this is a bill that truly will give voice to thousands of people. Over 5,000 people every year are diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's Disease, with ALS. They all have something to say. They all have that voice. The Steve Gleason Act will give them that voice so they can go out and continue to achieve their lives' potential. I urge the passage of this legislation.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in support not only of the rule, but of the underlying legislation with reforms that are included not only in the bill, but in the amendments that are coming forward in this rule. I first want to commend Chairman Kline and his staff for working over the last few months with many members of our Conference that had some real issues they wanted to see addressed in the bill. I want to talk about a few of those, specifically, the Salmon amendment that this rule makes in order that brings forward the ability for parents to opt out of testing in a way that doesn't impact the local school system. This comes down to a question of whether or not you trust parents to make the right decisions for their children in making real reforms that give parents more control, getting Washington out of those decisions and allowing local innovation to move forward, and allowing parents to make those decisions about what is best for their children. So the Salmon amendment does that. I strongly support it, and I know Chairman Kline supports it as well. I want to also point out the Rokita-Grothman amendment. This is an amendment, again, that Chairman Kline worked very closely with a number of our members on to bring forward to reduce the timeframe of the authorization. Instead of a 6-year authorization, it would be a 4-year authorization to give an opportunity to let the next administration put their own prints on what they want to see in terms of education reform while allowing these other reforms to move forward. That is an amendment that Chairman Kline supports, as I do, and, hopefully, gets added to the bill. The third amendment I want to talk about is the Zeldin amendment. This is an amendment that gets the Federal Government out of Common Core, not only financially, but also taking the ability away from the Secretary of the Department to use things like Common Core as a bludgeon when they are determining whether or not to approve waivers. So I think it is very important to get the Federal Government out of those decisions of Common Core, and that is what the Zeldin amendment does. And then, finally, the Walker amendment, allowing a vote on A-PLUS, is something that I support, and I am glad that that is in the rule as well. So many good reforms, not only with the amendments, but with the underlying bill, to give parents more control and get the Federal Government out of those decisions, really good legislation to advance conservative causes in letting innovation happen at the local level.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I want to thank my friend from Kentucky, the chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, for yielding and for bringing forward the Ratepayer Protection Act. Mr. Chairman, this bill goes directly to the heart of these radical regulations, which are coming out of agencies like the EPA, that are killing jobs in America. When you look at this regulation, this proposal by the EPA that this bill addresses, the EPA is proposing to bring forward more radical regulations that are going to increase the cost of household electricity for every family in this country. The estimates show you will see an over 12 percent increase in household electricity rates if the EPA is allowed to move forward. When you look at what this legislation does, at least it stands up and protects hard-working taxpayers who are tired of all of these regulations--one after the other--coming forward, not through legislation passed by Congress--in open, public settings like this that you can watch on C-SPAN--but coming forward through unelected bureaucrats at the EPA who want to carry out their own agenda. They can't pass it through Congress, so they try to just ram it through in regulations that aren't backed up by science but that would, in fact, actually, lead to more jobs being shipped out of this country. Where would those jobs go, Mr. Chairman? They would go to places like China and India and Brazil and to other countries that don't have the environmental standards that we have. You will actually see more carbon emitted if the EPA is successful in moving forward with regulations like this that this bill is addressing. I want to commend the chairman for bringing this forward. I think you are going to see a large, bipartisan vote in support of this legislation because people across the country are saying enough is enough. If the proposal is so good by the EPA, why not move it through Congress? Why not have public hearings on C-SPAN and present the facts and point out and defend the increases that families are going to have in their household electricity rates? They want to hide, Mr. Chairman. They want to hide and try to just sneak this through with the regulation and not have any public vote on the bill. Here you have a bill, a bill that says let's slow this process down, that says let's actually give States the ability to opt out if they realize just how devastating it will be not only to the states' economies, but to the taxpayers in each State. In my State of Louisiana, this proposal by the EPA that we are trying to stop would yield about a 13 percent increase in people's household electricity rates. We are already paying too much. The costs of things are already too high because of regulations coming out of Washington not imposed by Congress, but imposed by unelected bureaucrats. Enough is enough. Let's rein in these unelected bureaucrats, and let's bring some common sense back to the process of getting our economy back on track. I urge the approval of this legislation, which is so important to getting our economy moving again.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. Mr. Speaker, American trade is critical to strengthening our economy and to giving American workers the competitive advantage that we need so we can go out and sell more of our goods all around the world. There aren't many impediments for foreign countries to bring their products into our countries and sell their goods here, but there are many, many impediments when we want to sell our products that we make, by American workers, to foreign countries, especially in Asian countries and European countries. Those countries right now, our allies around the world, want to get good trade agreements, good level playing fields, so that we can have good negotiated trade back and forth and sell more of our products in those countries. But right now China is writing the rules while America sits on the sidelines. We are not a country that sits on the sidelines, Mr. Speaker. This bill gets us in the game so America can go out and our workers can compete on a level playing field and we can sell more of our products overseas. But something else that this bill does, Mr. Speaker, is it actually gives Congress a direct say in the process, every step of the way. We lay out criteria, things that cannot be in trade deals, protections against immigration and global warming-type issues being included in these trade deals. But it also gives transparency, strong and enforceable rules so that any agreement that is reached would have to be available online, not just for us to read, as Members of Congress, but for the entire Nation to read for at least 60 days before there is even a vote in Congress. And then, of course, Congress would have the ultimate veto authority over a bad deal if it was sent. This bill is critical to getting America back in the game so our workers can be competitive. And when America competes on a level playing field, we win. Let's go create those American jobs by passing this bill.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I thank my colleague, the chairman from Texas, for yielding and for his leadership in bringing the America COMPETES Act to the floor. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the America COMPETES Act. If you look at what we are trying to do here, we want America to maintain our competitive edge, to create good-paying jobs here at home. But to do that, we need to invest wisely and responsibly in basic scientific research. After years of overspending and the administration expanding programs way beyond the core missions of the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy, the COMPETES Act prioritizes taxpayer dollars to support basic research in biology, chemistry, math, engineering, and computer science. American taxpayers' dollars are being spent on programs that do not meet the national interest or help invest in our future. I want to point out some of the wasteful spending that is being eliminated by this legislation, the America COMPETES Act. Mr. Chairman, $340,000 of taxpayer money is being spent to study human-set fires in New Zealand in the 1800s--taxpayer dollars here in America are being spent on that; $50,000 to study civil lawsuits in Peru from 1600 to 1700; $487,000 to study textiles and gender in Iceland from 874-1800, during the Viking era; $697,000 for ``The Great Immensity,'' a musical about climate change. This is what taxpayer dollars are being spent on, Mr. Chairman, at a time when Americans are tightening their belts and are looking to Washington to do what they are doing in being fiscally responsible. This refocuses what we are supposed to be trying to do to promote science, to promote computer science, as a computer scientist, the things that are going to help American workers be successful--not all of this foolishness that is wasting taxpayer money. It is a great bill that actually prioritizes the taxpayer dollars of this country. I urge my colleagues to pass it.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague for bringing this amendment and for focusing in on areas where we can actually eliminate spending here in Washington. Again, you have to recognize that about 35 cents of every dollar spent is money borrowed from countries like China, so we ought to be combing every different piece of this budget and finding areas where we can say that this isn't something that the Federal Government should be doing. It might be a noble program to have exchanges with other countries, but to be spending millions of dollars at a time when our country has needs that aren't being met and that we are borrowing money from other countries and sending that bill to our children, this is a time where we have got to be combing through these kinds of programs, and I want to thank him for his leadership. This is a time where we have got to be combing through these kind of programs, and I want to thank him for his leadership. This is something that should be eliminated. We shouldn't be spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money to bring people over to this country. If they want to come, we welcome them. Many countries do send people over here to observe how democracy works; we send people on occasion to other countries to spread democracy, but there are duplications in so many other areas of our budget where this is already being done, and this is just one more area where we ought to be saving taxpayers' money and being fiscally responsible. This isn't something we can afford to do; it isn't something we should be doing. I am glad the gentleman is bringing the amendment to eliminate this spending. I support it and hope the House approves it.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding the time. Mr. Chairman, I want to present an amendment that is bipartisan and that deals with AbilityOne agencies. The Department of Defense has created three procurement programs for Afghanistan, central Asian states, and Djibouti to support businesses and local economies in these countries and to cultivate positive relationships in the region and the world. The problem is, while I surely appreciate their intentions, there have been unintended consequences with this program in implementing these programs. The GSA has allowed businesses located in these countries to supply products manufactured by AbilityOne agencies, which employ blind and disabled Americans. The result of that policy has been devastating to many of these AbilityOne agencies across the country. We have seen job losses here in America in implementing this new policy by the Department of Defense. This amendment addresses the problem of these job losses by exempting those AbilityOne agencies from this Department of Defense procurement program. If you look at what has happened with this program, we have seen facilities not only in Louisiana but in States like New York, Texas, Ohio, Kansas, North Carolina, Nebraska, and Washington all experience job losses here in America from shipping those jobs over to foreign countries. Again, I think--or I surely would hope--that that was not the intention of the program, Mr. Chairman, to take jobs away from disabled Americans and ship those jobs overseas. So what this amendment does is restore those jobs back here in America for those blind and other disabled Americans who have one of the highest underemployment populations in the country. Let's keep those jobs here. We can continue building relations with other countries, but just not at the expense of American jobs for disabled workers. That is what the amendment does. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), who is a cosponsor.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee for yielding and for her leadership and for all of the people that have worked so hard to bring this important bill to the House floor. If you look at what we are doing here today, we are standing up for life of our most innocent. We are talking about babies that are more than 20 weeks in the womb. Scientific evidence shows that after 20 weeks, these babies can feel pain, and so this bill prohibits abortions after 5 months of pregnancy. I am proud to come from Louisiana, which has the distinction of being the most pro-life State in the Nation. Our State already bans this procedure, as do many. It is not just States we are talking about. Most nations in the world don't allow this procedure after 20 weeks. The United States will finally be joining the vast majority of other countries around the world and the vast majority of Americans who understand that it is not right to have abortions after 20 weeks. This is an important bill. I think it is a very strong message that we are going to be sending in defense of life by passing it. I urge my colleagues to support it as well.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Abraham, for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Chairman, if you look at this proposal, the way it came about, there was not the right kind of planning and the right kind of feedback, the right kind of working with people who have been working hard on flood protection structures. Mr. Chairman, this proposal by the President, if it were implemented, would actually make it harder to build flood protection projects. Why would the President want to bring forward a proposal that is going to make it harder for people to protect their homes from flooding? This isn't just a south Louisiana problem; this impacts the entire Nation. There are people all around the country that would not only be threatened by the inability to build stronger flood protection, but this would also lead to dramatic increases in insurance rates on homeowners. This proposal by the President is not only a solution in search of a problem; this is going to be a dangerous proposal that will have dramatically devastating impacts on families all across this Nation. This is a proposal that needs to be reversed. I support it. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding and also for his leadership in bringing this budget to the floor. I really want to thank the entire Committee on the Budget and the conferees for doing the hard work and the responsible work of finally focusing on bringing responsibility and fiscal discipline back to Washington. If you look at what has been happening all across the country, people are struggling. These are tough times. It is a tough economy. People's wages are stagnant. They are paying more for food. They are paying more for electricity. They are surely paying more for health care. They are looking to Washington and saying: Why doesn't Washington start focusing on these problems? Why doesn't Washington do what families are doing? Hard-working taxpayers live within their means. Why can't Washington do the same? This budget does that. It focuses on creating a healthy economy, actually getting jobs, and getting people back to work in this country, forcing Washington to finally balance the Federal budget. Mr. Speaker, when we pass this budget, it will represent the first time since 2001 that Congress has come together to pass a budget that balances in the 10-year window. That shouldn't be something that happens every 14 years; that should be something we do every year. The other side surely didn't do it when they were in the majority. In fact, none of the budgets they brought to the floor ever get to balance--not 10 years, not 20 years, not 50 years. They rack up more debt. They increase taxes. There are over $2 trillion of new taxes in the President's budget that he proposed, and he never gets to balance. This budget not only calls for good tax reform to make our country competitive again, lower rates so that families can keep more of their money and invest in themselves and not grow the size of government, but it actually focuses on getting more jobs in this country and stop shipping jobs out of the country. It repeals the President's healthcare law that is causing so many problems, millions of people losing the good healthcare plans they have and paying more for it. We have got to finally bring this discipline back and finally force Washington to do what families have been doing and be responsible. It is a good budget. I am glad that we are going to be bringing it to the floor and passing it. Let's get to doing the other work we need to do to get our economy back on track, and it starts here.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding. I rise in strong support of the rule and especially in strong support of the underlying legislation to repeal the death tax in the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, if you look at what the death tax is, this is an attack on family-owned businesses. You are talking about people who have built up, as part of the American Dream, built up businesses that are creating jobs across this country. These people, by the way, paid taxes all along the way as they were building up that business. The business has already been taxed multiple times in some cases by the Federal Government; yet because of the death tax, when the businessowner dies, the first thing the Federal Government does is Uncle Sam shows up not to issue condolences to the grieving family, but to send them a massive tax bill that, in many cases, Mr. Speaker--in many cases--threatens the very existence of that business. What we hear from small-businessowners all across the country and family-owned businesses is that, in many cases, when their loved ones die, while they are trying to figure out how to grieve and how to take care of the family from there, in many cases, they have to spend those first few weeks figuring out how or even if they can keep the family- owned business. In many cases, we see people having to sell their family-owned business that they wanted to pass on to the next generation just to pay the death tax. This is morally wrong, Mr. Speaker, that the Federal Government taxes people on their death after they have already paid taxes building up their businesses, wanting to pass on the American Dream. Part of the American Dream is not just to own a home or to create good jobs for people, but to be able to pass that on to your kids so that they can experience and live that same dream as well and continue to grow and create jobs. What we see so many times because of this death tax is that many businessowners spend so much of their time and their resources trying to figure out how to shield their business from the death tax. A lot of people aren't paying this tax. They are paying a lot of accountants and attorneys to figure out how to avoid the death tax so they can pass it on to their kids. That is money--millions and billions of dollars--that they could be spending growing their business, growing jobs, and creating more opportunities for other people not only to have that first job, but to then go out and create their own small business. But, lo and behold, if they are too successful, Mr. Speaker, and they grow that business big enough and they have kids they want to pass it on to, eventually, they are going to die, and the one constant they know is that their kids will have to face that same decision of whether or not to sell the family business just to pay the Federal Government over their death. This is morally wrong. It is time we repeal this death tax and preserve the American Dream for those family-owned businesses all across this country.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from Georgia, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, for his leadership and for the hard work of his entire committee. When we talk about this budget that is on the floor, I rise in strong support of this budget that restores fiscal sanity back to Washington. If you talk about one of the greatest threats facing our Nation right now, it is the fact that out-of-control spending and the lack of ability to set priorities and make those tough decisions to get our economy moving again have held our economy back, and it has also held back the opportunities for so many young people that deserve the same opportunity to achieve the American Dream that we and every generation that has come before us have been able to achieve. And so, Mr. Chairman, what is so important about this budget is not just the fact that we get back to balance within 10 years. Balancing the Federal budget--we can do it. We actually lay it out in this budget. But it is all of the underlying policies, the great reforms that have been so desperately needed by Washington for so long, actually confronting challenges facing our country in a way that puts us on a path to get the economy moving again. Let's talk about Medicare. Medicare is on a path to bankruptcy, Mr. Chairman. And what is so important with this budget is we actually lay out a plan to save Medicare from bankruptcy and strengthen it for future generations. That is in this budget. We repeal the President's health care law, ObamaCare, something that has cost millions of people the good health care they like. It caused doctors to leave the practice of medicine and killed jobs across this country. We lay out the process for tax reform. We lay out really good reforms that people have been asking Washington to make. These are things that families have been doing for years, sitting around the kitchen table, making the tough decisions to ultimately live within their means and make sure that they can go forward and provide better opportunities for their children. That is what this budget does. And let's contrast that, Mr. Chairman, to President Obama's budget. President Obama lays out a budget that never, ever gets to balance. And not only that, he adds another $2.1 trillion in new taxes, taxes that will kill economic growth even more and that will take jobs out of this country and ship them overseas. The President always talks about raising taxes on people as if it is the only way to balance the budget. I would think the President's budget, with those new taxes, would get to balance in 2 or 3 years. Yet his budget never gets to balance. We don't raise a dime in new taxes in our budget. We just empower American people again. We let families have control over their health care decisions again. And with that empowerment, we get to balance in less than 10 years. This is the direction we need to head for our country, Mr. Chairman. This is the reason we all came here to Washington, to tackle the big problems in a way that restores opportunities for all Americans. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Indiana for yielding. As we observed a moment of silence on the House floor just a little while ago, I rise today in honor of the 11 brave American servicemen involved in last week's tragic helicopter crash off the coast of Florida. It is heartbreaking events like this, Mr. Speaker, which remind us that freedom is not free. Four of those heroes were members of the Louisiana National Guard stationed within the 1st of the 244th Assault Helicopter Battalion out of Hammond, Louisiana, which is located in my district. Our hearts are heavy, Mr. Speaker, as our Nation joins the battalion in mourning the loss of Chief Warrant Officer George Wayne Griffin, Jr., Chief Warrant Officer George David Strother, Staff Sergeant Lance Bergeron, and Staff Sergeant Thomas Florich. Their names will forever be engraved in our hearts and in our minds. They were described by their fellow soldiers as extraordinary and amazing aviators. Colonel Patrick Bossetta, the commander of the State Aviation Command, who I spoke with over the weekend, said this, Mr. Speaker: ``This crew was made up of the larger-than-life men who have had a passion for Army aviation that was so evident in the dedication that they had towards their profession. I know this, as I have personally flown with each one of them. They were driven by their intense desire to selflessly serve their country, fellow soldiers, and marines.'' I want to talk about what some of their other colleagues said about them. Lieutenant Colonel John L. Bonnette II, who is the commander of the 244th said: ``When I say they were heroes, I mean it many times over. They risked their lives under difficult conditions, flying in combat and during national emergencies, to ensure our security and help save thousands of people. I don't have the words to sum up their lives in a few sentences. You just can't. Our whole aviation family is reeling from this loss. The hole that is left is enormous. They were part of the fabric of this unit. The difference they made with everyone they served with will be a lasting legacy. Personally, flying with all of them was a privilege and an honor. I am a better person for having known them.'' These heroes, Mr. Speaker, were husbands, fathers, and sons. We reflect upon the countless sacrifices they made for our great Nation, the selfless call they answered to defend our freedoms. They died doing what they loved. I want to take a few moments now to let the American people know about these four members of the Louisiana National Guard who died in this tragic accident. First is Chief Warrant Officer 4 George Wayne Griffin, Jr., who was 37 years old. Chief Warrant Officer Griffin was from Delhi, Louisiana, and joined the Louisiana National Guard in 1994 and was commissioned as a warrant officer in 1999 before going on to become the battalion standardization pilot with over 6,000 flight hours, including more than 1,000 combat hours. He later deployed to Iraq in 2004 to 2005 and again was redeployed in 2008 and 2009. He also served during State deployments in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Isaac, as well as in support of Operations River Guardian and Deepwater Horizon. ``G. Wayne Griffin was born to be an Army Aviator,'' said Chief Warrant Officer 5 Reggie Lane, commander of Detachment 38, Operational Support Airlift Command. ``As one of the most talented and respected warrant officers in the Louisiana National Guard, he had a tremendous passion for flying and a God-given natural ability to fly both helicopters and airplanes and to teach others to be the best aviators and crewmembers they could be. He was a great friend and brother to all. With his loss, there will be a void that may never be filled.'' Griffin is survived by his wife, Becky, four children, and his father. Now, Chief Warrant Officer 4 George David Strother was 44 years old. Chief Warrant Officer Strother was from Alexandria and served in the Louisiana National Guard from 1988 to 2007 and again from 2009 until his death last week. He deployed to Iraq in 2004 and 2005, to Afghanistan in 2011, and Kosovo in 2014. He also served during State deployments for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Isaac. Strother commissioned as a warrant officer in 1994 before going on to become an instructor pilot, with over 2,400 flight hours, including more than 700 combat hours. ``To describe Dave Strother as a big personality would not be accurate. He was more like a force of nature that could best be observed and marveled at, never opposed or altered,'' said Major Andre Jeansonne, commander, F Company, 2nd Battalion, 135th Aviation Regiment. ``His huge heart touched the lives of all men he met.'' Strother is survived by his wife, Melissa, his son and a stepdaughter, and his mother. Staff Sergeant Lance Bergeron, 40 years old. Staff Sergeant Lance Bergeron of Thibodaux, Louisiana, enlisted into the U.S. Marine Corps in 1998 before joining the Louisiana National Guard in 2001 as a Black Hawk repairman. His extensive experience as a qualified enlisted flight instructor, graduate of the aircraft crewmember standardization instructor course, aircraft maintainer force, and warrior leader course made Bergeron a crew chief others aspired to be, according to members of his own unit. The combat veteran deployed to Iraq twice, in 2004 to 2005, and again in 2008 to 2009. Bergeron also served during State deployments for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Isaac, and Operation River Guardian. Bergeron is survived by his wife, Monique, two children, and his mother and father. Finally, Staff Sergeant Thomas Florich, 26 years old. Staff Sergeant Florich, of Fairfax County, Virginia, enlisted in the Louisiana National Guard in 2007 as a Black Hawk repairer. He was posthumously promoted from sergeant to staff sergeant. Staff Sergeant Florich served during State deployment for Operation Deepwater Horizon and Hurricane Isaac. He earned more than 125 flight hours and was a graduate of the warrior leader course. ``Tom was full of life, and his personality could light the room,'' said Marquez. ``He was family with this unit and felt at home working with his brothers in Alpha Company. His dedication to duty and loyalty was without equal, always ready to accept any mission and extra duty in order to help the unit meet the mission. He will be greatly missed by the unit and the flight facility.'' Florich is survived by his wife, Meghan, who is expecting their first child, as well as his father and stepmother. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, these four men served their country and the people of Louisiana with great honor. They deployed to war zones and served during times of great emergency for our State. They represent the very best of what our military stands for. On behalf of my family, the Louisiana congressional delegation, and the entire House of Representatives, I want to say thank you to these four men and their families for the sacrifices they have made and for their service to our country. Their service and sacrifice will not be forgotten. They will remain in our prayers. God bless these heroes, and God bless America.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Walden, for his leadership in bringing this forward and the ranking member, Mr. Pallone, as well as Ms. Eshoo, the ranking member of the subcommittee, who has been working very closely I know with myself and others to bring a good, bipartisan bill that actually gets rid of outdated regulations and reports. This FCC Consolidated Reporting Act actually reduces the workload that the FCC has placed for years and years that has been outdated. If you look at some of the reports that have been required for years that they are supposed to go and consolidate and accumulate, they have reports on competitiveness within the telegraph. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, it is long past time that we update these laws and get the FCC reform in place that will finally bring some consolidation so that industry can look at a full picture instead of a bunch of different silos and reports that are so outdated, like the telegraph, that they are not even being done, yet these laws are still on the books. This is an important reform, and it is a good bipartisan reform that shows that Congress can work to get these kinds of things done to actually make things simpler in the real world and make an agency like the FCC more efficient in their operations. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama for yielding and for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor to repeal the President's health care law. It was back in 2010 when then-Speaker Pelosi infamously said: We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it. Well, Mr. Speaker, we know what is in the bill. American people across the country have seen the devastating impacts of the President's health care law. Millions of people have lost the good health care that they had that they liked. We all heard the promise: If you like what you have, you can keep it. The promise was broken to millions of people. And not only did they lose good health care, but many, many millions of people have seen dramatic increases. They are paying double-digit increases for the health care that they do have. And what is worse, Mr. Speaker, is we have seen that vital doctor-patient relationship violated now by unelected bureaucrats in Washington who have come in between the doctor and the patients to make decisions on people's health care. That is not the way to do reform. That was the old way, the Washington-knows-best way. There is a better way, and this bill starts that process by first repealing the law in its entirety and then getting the committees of jurisdiction involved, putting an alternative in place with a shot clock of 180 days where we can come up with a real bipartisan alternative. Let's repeal this law, and let's restore the doctor- patient relationship.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. ``The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty-thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.''

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate and celebrate the 200th anniversary of the Battle of New Orleans. A lot of celebrations are going on about this important, decisive victory that helped America expand West and establish the Port of New Orleans, but there has also been such a great collaboration with the British Government. In fact, the British Government has been working with the National Park Service and the Battle of New Orleans Commission to not only commemorate this occasion, but also to remember those who died on both the American and British sides. They are working together again to forge that great relationship that we have always had. In fact, this was the last time that the United States and Great Britain were on the opposite sides of a war. While we appreciate that great relationship we have with Great Britain, we are also celebrating that important moment in the history of the United States: the 200th anniversary of the Battle of New Orleans.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding and for his leadership on immigration issues. I especially want to thank my colleague and friend from Florida, Congressman Yoho, for bringing forward this important piece of legislation, which just goes back and reestablishes the rule of law, Mr. Speaker. You have got a President who has consistently gone out, time and time again, and shown disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law of this Nation. We just had an election in November. The President, himself, said this was going to be a referendum on his agenda, and the American people were crystal clear about their dislike of this failed agenda from this President. They have told him: Get back to work. Go work with Congress to solve problems. What is the first response? The President has to poke his finger in the eye of the American people, people who spoke loud and clear to him, in saying that he is going to disregard what they said; and he is going to ignore the rule of law and, in fact, ignore what our constitutional framework of checks and balances is. He thinks he can just sit in the Oval Office and write his own laws, and then he comes forward with this proposal to literally disregard enforcement of our Nation's immigration laws. This isn't going to stand, Mr. Speaker. This legislation says: You can't do that, Mr. President. There is a rule of law. You need to start enforcing that law. We came together as a House just a few months ago and passed a border security bill. Let's actually get back to the rule of law and protecting our Nation's borders. It is not just an immigration issue; it is a national security issue. So what is the President's response to this legislation? He threatens a veto. Again, the President thinks he can just sit in the Oval Office and make up his own laws. That is not the way our system of government works, Mr. Speaker. So we bring this legislation forward today to get us back to that rule of law and to remind the President that it is time for him to heed the message that millions of Americans across the country sent just a few weeks ago in saying: You need to start working with Congress to solve real problems. In fact, this weekend, in my home State of Louisiana, there are three more elections on that ballot. Pay close attention, Mr. President. Pay close attention to yet another referendum on your agenda that is going to occur this Saturday with a Senate election and two more House races. The American people want you to get out of the cocoon of the Oval Office and start working with Congress to solve real problems. We have passed legislation to solve those problems. You can try to ignore them, issue veto threats, but it is time for to you roll up your sleeves and get to work with us and solve those problems together. Pull back your executive action. This legislation ensures that happens. I urge approval.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit because I strongly support American manufacturing, and that is what our bill is about. It is about getting Americans back to work. Our friends on the other side of the aisle want to talk about protecting seniors. The biggest threat we hear about seniors right now is the President's health care law that cut hundreds of billions of dollars out of the Medicare program. Why don't you work with us to repeal that law and replace it with reforms that actually strengthen Medicare and help seniors? That would be a really good place to start. Now, let's talk about jobs, Mr. Speaker, because that is the focus of this bill, and this is a bipartisan piece of legislation. What we are trying to do is actually support some of the things the President himself has talked about. The President said that he wants to cut red tape. Do you know what this bill does, Mr. Speaker? It cuts red tape. The President says he wants to be the most transparent President ever. We would actually like to help him fulfill that promise. In our bill, we actually require transparency from the EPA to actually start proving what they are saying that they want to do with actual science. If you look at what has been holding back our economy, so many States will tell you, when they are trying to issue permits, it is agencies like the EPA that are holding back their ability to create jobs and issue permits that would result in higher air quality standards. Ironically, the motion to recommit that they are bringing forward would actually make it harder to implement higher air quality standards. We have had testimony in committee, Mr. Speaker, from companies that have told us that they are right now delayed by years, in some cases, in the permitting process to build new or better plants to create thousands of jobs in America because the EPA will come up with rules and guidelines; yet they won't even show States or industry groups how they can achieve this in the real world. There is this parallel universe, Mr. Speaker. You have got the EPA coming out time and time again with rules and regulations that cannot be implemented in the real world, and then you have got people that are trying to create jobs in America saying, ``The biggest thing holding us back from creating good American jobs is these crazy radical rules coming out by the EPA and other agencies like it.'' Mr. Speaker, we have got a choice to make, here in this Chamber and across this country. The President says he wants to create jobs; yet he comes out with rules with those agencies like the EPA that are the biggest impediment to us creating jobs in America. The President says he wants to be transparent, and yet he refuses to be transparent, and a bill, like our bill here today, says he has to be transparent. Show us how you are expediting the permitting process. He talks about that. It is time to walk the walk. He says he actually wants to remove that red tape. Well, do you know what, Mr. Speaker? In our bill, we hold the President to his promise by removing that red tape. We ask ourselves today: Do we want to get our economy moving again? I say ``yes.'' Do we want to cut the red tape the President promises but doesn't deliver? I say, ``Yes. Let's cut that red tape.'' Do we want to get our economy moving again? I say, ``Let's create those jobs, get our economy moving again, and get these radical agencies that are slowing down job growth in our country out of the way.'' Let's vote down this motion to recommit, pass the underlying bipartisan bill, and get the economy moving again. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Upton for yielding and for his leadership, as well as Chairman Walden of the subcommittee and the ranking members, for bringing a good bipartisan bill to the floor that addresses some real problems and starts to lay some groundwork for important future discussions about the video marketplace. Let me first say, Mr. Speaker, that the STELA Reauthorization Act will give certainty and ensure that 1.5 million satellite consumers across the country don't have to fear losing their signal at the end of this year, which will happen without passage of this legislation. So it is very important that immediately we get this resolved so that we don't create that uncertainty across the country. Also, Mr. Speaker, why this bill is important is it finally starts to implement some important and much-needed reforms to our video marketplace laws. I have been saying this a long time: If you look at the laws that we have on the books, we have a 21st century marketplace, we have a dynamic industry that has evolved and grown, and the technology has advanced in a dramatic way over the last few decades, but, unfortunately, the laws have not changed to reflect the current marketplace. We have started that conversation with a few of the provisions in this bill, and I was happy to work with the chairman, the ranking member, and others on some of those provisions; and we also talked about the need to have a deeper conversation about a Communications Act update next year in the new Congress. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleagues on that as well. But in the meantime, it is important that we pass this bill and that we urge the Senate to move quickly as well to create that certainty for those customers all across the country that are counting on us to get this done. Again, I congratulate the chairman and ranking member for working in a bipartisan way to bring this bill to the House floor and pass it along.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Whitfield for yielding, and I especially want to thank my colleague from Louisiana, Congressman Cassidy, for the leadership that he had in fighting hard to get this bill brought to the floor so we can finally get the Keystone pipeline built. If you look at this issue, this is all about jobs, and it is all about American energy security, Mr. Speaker. What does the Keystone pipeline mean for America? According to the Obama administration, 40,000 jobs will be created here in America, good jobs that our economy needs. In fact, this is not a partisan issue; this is a very bipartisan issue. Republicans and Democrats alike have come together and said, ``Build the Keystone pipeline.'' Even the labor unions have said, ``Build the Keystone pipeline.'' Unfortunately, just a small group of radical environmental extremists have held this project hostage, and President Obama has hidden behind studies and subterfuge to say, ``Don't do it.'' Now, Congress can come together in a bipartisan way and say, ``Let's get this thing done.'' Let's actually work with Canada, who is a friend, Mr. Speaker, and bring almost a million barrels a day of oil from Canada that we will no longer need to get from countries who don't like us. This isn't about a million new barrels coming into America; it is about deciding who we are going to do business with. When we trade with Canada, we get about 80 cents on the dollar back. When we send billions of dollars to Middle Eastern countries, sometimes that money is used against us, against our troops, and we get less than 50 cents on the dollar back. Everything about this says do it, says ``yes.'' Stop staying ``no'' to American jobs. Stop saying ``no'' to American energy security. This is an issue that brings people together, and there was a message that the American people sent last week. They don't want a go-alone President. They want a Washington that can work for them. This is a classic example of how Republicans and Democrats can come together and say ``yes'' to a project that creates good jobs for our country and creates American energy security for our Nation. The time for studies is over. This has been studied to death for 6 years. Everybody that looks at this says, ``You have got to do it.'' All we are saying is let the United States agree with Canada to cross the border. They still have to get the permits from each State that this pipeline would go through and all those great jobs that would come with that pipeline and the billions of dollars of private investment. The time for studying is over, Mr. Speaker. It is time for action. It is time for those great American jobs. It is time to say ``yes'' to the Keystone pipeline. I urge approval from my colleagues for this bill.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Washington for yielding and for his leadership over the years. We are going to miss him in this House, but I appreciate him leading on these energy efforts as he has over the years. I want to also thank my colleague from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), for bringing this bill forward. This is a jobs bill, but this is also a bill about American energy security, and, Mr. Speaker, it is a bill about national security. Let's go through each of those. First of all, this bill green-lights the Keystone pipeline. Here, you have got a bill that has been sitting on Barack Obama's desk for 6 years, Mr. Speaker, where 40,000 jobs hang in the mix, and President Obama continues to say ``no.'' We are finally saying ``yes'' to 40,000 American jobs, a great investment in a trading partner in Canada. We can get energy from Canada that we would no longer have to get from Middle Eastern countries who don't like us, Mr. Speaker. What this bill also does is opens up some of those vast natural resources throughout the Outer Continental Shelf that are closed right now off the coast of places like Virginia, Alaska, and, yes, even in Louisiana, where in our State we have said those extra revenue sources--that money that would be coming into our treasury--would help us reduce the national debt, but the revenue-sharing States would also be able to play a role in that. If a State wants to help produce energy for America, they can also help our own economy. In our State, we said we want to focus on restoring our coast, putting that buffer in place that blocks future storms. Mr. Speaker, this also helps lower gas prices at the pumps. Families who are struggling in this tough economy because of all the radical regulations coming out of the Obama administration can finally get some relief in gas prices through that energy security, again, removing the dependence we have on Middle Eastern countries and other people who don't like us. We dealt with and started to address the threat from groups like ISIL, Mr. Speaker. Do you know that ISIL makes over $2 million a day from the oil fields they control that funds their terrorist activities? Let's become energy secure as a Nation and get the energy security that goes with it, the jobs that go with it and all the great access to those resources that improve our economy. I urge adoption of the bill.