Steve Scalise

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding and for his leadership in bringing this budget to the floor. I rise in strong support of the RSC budget that we have here today, and I want to talk about a few of the great things that it does to get our economy moving again and get our country back on track. The first thing that it does, it balances in 4 years. That's right, we really do think it's an important priority of this country that we balance the Federal budget. I have a 6-year-old daughter and a 3-year- old son, and I don't think that it's asking too much that we balance the Federal budget before they graduate from high school. And so we do that. What else do we do with this budget? We get our economy moving again through tax reform that's pro-growth oriented and actually lower overall rates and close loopholes so that we can create jobs and be competitive again and get the country moving on track again. Another thing we do, we save Medicare from bankruptcy. On the current path, according to President Obama's own Medicare actuaries, right now Medicare is scheduled to go bankrupt in 11 years. We don't think it's responsible to let that happen, so we actually put a plan in place to save Medicare from bankruptcy and ensure it for future generations. We also repeal the job-killing ObamaCare, and not just the policies behind it, but all the taxes, many of which fall on middle class families, by the way. And so that's going to help get our economy moving again. But let's contrast this vision, this document that's being criticized by my friends on the other side, with the President's budget. What's the President's budget? It doesn't exist. Today the President released his Final Four picks. He released his brackets. He's not a day late on that. Yet, under the law, the President is now 45 days late on releasing his budget. So what kind of set of priorities does that show, the fact that the President doesn't think that it's important enough to meet the legal deadline to file his own budget, he's 45 days late, and yet we know his Final Four picks? So we have a plan to get the economy moving again. We're laying this plan forward to get a balanced budget and to get our economy moving and start putting some pro-growth policies in place so we can create jobs in this country.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Radel).

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, I'm prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE. At this time, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the Republican whip from Kendall, California (Mr. McCarthy).

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, if I may inquire, how much time is remaining?

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, clearly, if you look at what happened, we don't have the numbers from the President because he missed his statutory deadline, so we're hoping that he at least puts forth a budget. It would be ideal if he puts forth a budget that shows balance in some period of time, as we've done; but at the same time, we also expect transparency so that the American taxpayers can see where more than 60 percent of the budget is spent. So I urge adoption of this amendment and the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, at this time I'd like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), the author of the underlying bill.

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, the amendment that I bring forward just puts some additional transparency into a piece of legislation that I strongly support that just requires the President to lay out a detailed plan of how his budget would balance. What this amendment would do would be to specifically carve out direct spending. Direct spending, Madam Chair, represents more than 60 percent of all Federal expenditures. So more than 60 percent of our budget is direct spending, both means tested and non-means tested. All we ask for with this amendment is the transparency that as that supplemental budget is produced, that it also breaks out how means- tested spending and non-means-tested spending, number one, was averaged over the prior 10 years, but also, in this supplemental budget the President would lay out, what would happen to those direct spending programs over the course of the period that the President would lay out in that supplemental budget. One other thing it does is it makes sure that if there are any reforms, just like in the House budget, if we lay out any reforms, those would have to be spelled out in the language of this amendment. So if any reforms to direct spending would be included in the President's supplemental budget, that those reforms would have to be spelled out in an actual text of that document. This is something we already included in the House rules package. It's part of the House rules when a House budget is presented, so we felt like the American people deserve this kind of transparency, especially when you're talking about more than 60 percent of the budget. Let's just make sure it's laid out. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, for yielding and for bringing forward the Require a PLAN Act. You know, when our colleagues on the other side talk about games and all of these things that are frustrating and angering the American people, what angers them the most is when they don't see Washington doing their job. The law says the President, the House, and the Senate have to produce a budget. Now, the House has met its legal obligation the last 2 years; the Senate, they've failed to produce a budget in 4 years; and the President has missed his legal deadline 4 of the last 5 years. One of my colleagues said that somehow it's the Republicans' fault this year that the President didn't produce the budget on time. Okay. If that's the case, then that means 3 of the other 4 years is he going to blame, like, maybe the dog ate his homework, or maybe blame it on President Bush? At some point, this President's got to take responsibility and live by the same laws that American families live by. You know, American families, at the end of each year, they sit around the house kitchen table and they do a budget. They actually figure out what their priorities are going to be. And they look to Washington and they see a President and a Senate that literally ignore the law and say they're not going to produce a budget. They're not going to produce a budget that balances. They're not going to produce a budget that sets priorities. They're just going to keep borrowing money from China and sending the bill to our kids and our grandkids. And then the President wants to come and demand that Congress give him another credit card. We absolutely have to pay off the debts of the past. But when the President says not only pay those debts off, but give him another credit card so he can keep spending money, but he doesn't even lay out a plan of how he's going to spend the money--and, oh, by the way, whatever he produces never ever balances. Is it too much just to ask the President when is your budget going to finally get to balance? If it's not next year, if it's not 10 years from now, if it's not 20 years from now, at least put that transparency out there in public. He said he was going to be the most transparent President ever, and yet, when it comes time to actually deliver, to produce and to show something to the American people, he always wants to blame somebody else. We've got to stop living crisis to crisis, and one of the ways you stop this crisis of the moment is to finally produce a plan, lay something out. Let's debate it. We can have disagreements over it, but you have to start with a plan, and that's what this bill does. I urge my colleagues to adopt it.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, here we are on New Year's Eve working to avoid this latest fiscal cliff. Of course, if you wonder why we're here, just look at the fact that we shouldn't have to be here. Back on August 1, this House, with a bipartisan vote, passed a bill that would have avoided this fiscal cliff. It would have protected every American family from seeing a tax increase. The bill passed on August 1, and it's been sitting over in the Senate every day since then. But here we are on New Year's Eve, and the Senate is finally rolling up their sleeves and working to avoid this crisis. Well, here we are at another crisis, and, unfortunately, as we look towards this New Year tomorrow, this is not the last time that we may be here. We passed a budget here in the House months ago. It's been more than 3 years since the Senate passed a budget, yet months from now we'll be hearing another cliff approaching of a government shutdown because the Senate hasn't passed a budget. It's time for the Senate to start doing their work and stop creating these crises and forcing American families to wonder what's going to happen next and what's going to be the next crisis. We should not have any American family facing a tax increase. Let's get the American economy on track.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentlelady from Tennessee again for yielding and the gentlelady from New York for pointing those important facts out, because if you look at an important point that was just brought up, under ObamaCare, there were more than 20 different tax increases in ObamaCare, many of which, by the way, hit the middle class. Sure, in ObamaCare the President went after those rich people that he despises so much. He's happy to take their campaign cash during elections, but he went after them in ObamaCare with tax increases. But he also went after middle class families. This medical device tax that hits January 1 hits every single American that has medical procedures.

Mr. SCALISE. I want to thank the gentlelady from Tennessee for her leadership and for hosting not only this hour, but for being so passionate about the need to control spending and to get our economy back on track. I know she was on one of the Sunday talk shows just this weekend talking about this issue and talking about conservative solutions to avert this so-called fiscal cliff. And if you look at how we got here and what American families are facing starting January 1, if nothing gets resolved out of Washington, it's an abyss that doesn't need to happen. If you just go back and look at some of the promises made by President Obama when he was running for office, when he was running for reelection, he talked about working across the aisle. He talked about bipartisan solutions. He talked about it a lot, and the American people expected that the President would keep that promise. But before the ink was even dry, before some of the States had even confirmed and finalized their vote totals for this last election, the President comes out with a hyperpartisan solution. That's his approach. First of all, when the President comes out with his plan to raise taxes on some and to not renew others and to threaten, literally, middle class families with a tax increase if some people don't get their taxes raised--there already was a bipartisan solution to avert this cliff. Just a few months ago, here in this House, we passed a bill with 19 Democrat votes--a strong bipartisan vote--to make sure nobody sees their taxes go up, completely avoiding this coming crisis. We passed that bill and sent it over to Senate. Of course, the Senate has refused to take any action on it because President Obama, and his Treasury Secretary I think has confirmed this, they're eager to go off the cliff. They think they'll get political points by doing this. This is a political calculation by them to try to blame the other party, and let's have this crisis and then go and push more taxes on the American people. I think if you look at what the message of this campaign was--there were a lot of messages. One was people wanted us to work together on bipartisan solutions. And we've got those bipartisan solutions to avert this crisis but also to avert so many of the other crises facing our Nation. But another thing they said--and probably the loudest thing people said--is they wanted us to focus on the economy and creating jobs. That's the biggest concern for most families across this country. People I talk to in southeast Louisiana, they're concerned about a sluggish economy, and, in many cases, it's some of the policies coming out of Washington that are creating all of these problems. If you want to say, will tax increases solve any of these problems, first of all, let's go back and look at history. We've gone and combed through and there has never been a time in modern history where raising taxes got you to a balanced budget. Never. It's never happened. The last time that a Republican House has balanced a Federal budget was back in the year 2000. Not that long ago. It seems like a long time ago. Washington has balanced its budget. We were living within our means back then, and we weren't doing it through tax increases. It was done through controlled spending. The last time a Democrat House has balanced a Federal budget was 1969. So maybe there aren't many people around here on the Democrat side that know how to balance a budget. But you don't do it by raising taxes. In fact, John F. Kennedy when he pushed through his economic plan that got growth going in the mid-1960s, it was through tax cuts. Go back and look at the quotes. Some of the best quotes against growth in government, against tax increases were made by John F. Kennedy when he pushed for a tax cut that ultimately was passed by President Johnson. So where do you get economic growth? Go back and look at those years. In the 1960s when they cut taxes, there was tremendous economic growth. A lot of jobs were created. In the 1980s when Ronald Reagan cut taxes, there was tremendous economic growth, one of the greatest times in history. Ultimately, if you look at the deficits in those periods, it came because you had a Congress that didn't control spending even with more money. And then you look at the Bush tax cuts, because that's what we're talking about here today: the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax rates. When those tax cuts were put in place in 2003, after that happened, within 3 years of tax cuts, the Federal Government took in 40 percent more money. Now, you wouldn't believe that if you listen to some of the mainstream media. You would think that cutting taxes takes money away from government and you need to raise taxes to bring in revenue. The opposite is true when you look at history. Forget about what politicians in Washington tell you who want to take more of your money to go and spend it on Big Government. When they cut taxes in 2003, within 3 years the Federal Government took in 40 percent more money.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady from Tennessee for yielding and for her leadership on this issue. As has been noted, right now, in Dubai, an arm of the United Nations is considering trying to take international control over parts of the Internet. If you look at the struggling economy we have right now in the United States, one of the few bright spots is the telecommunications industry. One of the reasons--as a computer science major, I would argue that one of the reasons that the telecommunications and technology industry has been so successful even in a tough economy is because the government hasn't figured out how to regulate it and slow it down. And yet here you have a proposal by the United Nations, coming out of the United Nations, to interfere with that multistakeholder organization which has been and allowed this industry to be so successful and allowed the Internet to shape and dramatically improve so many people's lives. So many of the things we can do today and all of the conveniences that have been added through great new aps and great new technology have come from this multistakeholder governance of the Internet. And yet here you have the United Nations try to step in. And let's be real clear about who some of these countries are that want to do this and what they're intending to do if they are successful. Countries like Russia and China are leading this. Some of the Arab nations right now where you see uprisings, and many of those uprisings, by the way, have been brought through social media, through an open and free Internet where people can come together in cyberspace and hold their leadership accountable and in some cases rise up against oppressive governments, and those governments would like nothing more than to be able to shut that down by taking over control of the Internet. I know it's been brought up before by the gentlelady from Tennessee and others, but I think it's important to know that Vladimir Putin, when he was meeting with the ITU Secretary-General said his goal, the reason that he and others like China are pursuing this, is to establish international control over the Internet through these new ITU rules. And so while these discussions are going on in Dubai, I think it's critical that this piece of legislation is something we can arm our supporters with, those who stand up for Internet freedom, to say it is the United States Congress' bipartisan agreement that we want to maintain that freedom. We don't want United Nations control over the Internet.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding and for bringing this legislation to the floor. The Buffett Rule Act that we're debating now will set up a process where citizens all across the country, rich, poor, whatever their income level, if they feel that they haven't paid enough money into the Federal Treasury, then they can just check off a box and submit the amount of money that they want to pay in addition to what the normal tax liability is, and the assurance will be that that money will be used specifically to pay down the national debt, which, of course, just a few weeks ago, broke the $16 trillion mark under President Obama. I think if you look at the Buffett Rule Act that we bring forward and contrast that with President Obama's proposed Buffett rule that he's talked about, what the President's talked about is actually raising taxes on the very small business owners that we need in our country to help create jobs to help get our economy going back again. In fact, even President Obama himself acknowledged that if you raise taxes on anybody in a bad economy, it will make the economy even worse. And make no mistake about it, we are living right now in a bad economy, in many cases because of the President's policies, because of the so many tax increases that this President has already imposed. Just in ObamaCare alone, President Obama has imposed more than 20 new taxes on middle class families. Many of them haven't kicked in and they don't kick in until after the election, conveniently, but those taxes are on the books, and it's going to make it even harder for American families who are struggling to get by in a tough economy. And so what's the President's latest answer in his version of the Buffett rule? It's to raise another $30-plus billion on the backs of our small business owners. By his own admission, that would make the economy even worse. And I think most people recognize the President would just use that money to go and spend even more money on a government that's already too big. So the question is: Do we set up a process under President Obama's approach where he would raise taxes on small business earners, further hurting the economy, just so that he can have more money to spend in Washington, where there's already too much wasteful spending, or do we have a process like we establish here in this bill, the Buffett Rule Act, which says that if somebody truly does not feel they're paying enough in taxes, then they can simply check a box and there will be a format that they can lay out however much they want to spend more and that money will be used not to grow the size of the Federal Government but to reduce the national debt? Again, it's a very clear contrast in approaches. If you look at the record that we've seen so far, the tax-and-spend approach under President Obama, it hasn't worked. We've had more than 8 percent employment literally since the President took office. And it's only gotten worse, to the point where millions of Americans have just given up looking for work. And the President's answer is to keep raising more taxes and spending more money and borrowing it from China because we don't have it. We need a better approach. We need to address the mushrooming deficit that broke the $16 trillion mark. And if people like Warren Buffett and others like him feel they're not sending enough to Washington, let them put their money where their mouth is. Give them that action by giving them this check box, but knowing that if they do send in more money, it's not going to be used to keep growing a bloated Federal Government and spending money we don't have. It's going to be used to finally start paying down this national debt that's out of control and that's a burden to the opportunities of today's workers and the unemployed who are looking for jobs, but also to future generations--to our children and grandchildren who the big spenders in Washington are borrowing that money from and sending the bill to our children. They've got to stop doing it. We've got to stop the way things are going now and get the economy back on track. And you don't do it by raising taxes. Again, President Obama even acknowledged that, even though his proposal is to raise taxes on our small business owners. You do it instead this way, by saying if you really feel like you want to send in more money to Washington, use it to pay down the national debt so we can finally get control over spending here. Americans for Tax Reform, Washington, DC, October 5, 2011. Hon. Steve Scalise, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Scalise: On behalf of Americans for Tax Reform, I am pleased to support your new legislation, the ``Buffett Rule Act of 2011.'' This bill would instruct the IRS to provide a prominent, convenient checkbox line on 1040 forms to allow those so inclined to pay extra income tax. Famously, Warren Buffett complained that his average effective tax rate was too low compared to his secretary. This is probably not true given the fact that Mr. Buffett has failed to release his own tax return for verification, and considering the average effective tax rate of his secretary is quite low based on her purported income. Nonetheless, Mr. Buffett should be able to voluntarily pay extra income taxes if he feels the need to--without imposing broad, job-killing tax hikes on our nation's small employers. These ``tax me more'' lines have been particularly- effective in flushing out the serious from the posturing on the state level. States that have a ``tax me more'' line repeatedly report almost no additional voluntary contributions to state tax coffers. This is despite the fact that there is no shortage of people who have already earned (or inherited) their wealth who want to see taxes raised on those still pursuing the American dream. In short, the limousine liberal set doesn't put their money where their mouth is. Taxpayers are calling Mr. Buffett's bluff with this legislation. It's his move. Sincerely, Grover Norquist.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. This past Friday the 13th, President Obama was out on the campaign trail, as he seems to be all the time, and he actually had the nerve to say: If you've got a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made it happen. That statement shows not only the contempt, but the arrogance, that this President has towards our small business owners and the people that are working hard out there in a tough economy and, in many cases, working hard in spite of the many rules and regulations coming out of this Obama administration that's making it even harder for them to create jobs and is one of the biggest reasons that we've seen so many jobs outsourced by this President, who could be called the Outsourcer in Chief for all of the millions of jobs that have left this country to go to other countries in the last 3\1/2\ years. There was a report that just came out yesterday by the National Federation of Independent Businesses that showed the President's newest tax proposal to raise taxes on small business owners will cost 700,000 jobs. That's Friday the 13th for every small business owner out there trying to get the economy back on and trying to keep their businesses afloat. That's over 10,000 jobs lost just in Louisiana. This needs to stop. We need to stop raising taxes on business owners. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, this amendment is very limited and straightforward to deal with a problem that we've started getting a lot of calls from Realtors in our district, as I'm sure many of my colleagues across the country are receiving, as well as property owners who own apartment units and other types of housing that are rented out. The Department of Housing and Urban Development has recently come out with a rule called the ``disparity impact rule,'' and it's not a final rule that has been issued yet. We're just trying to make a narrow clarification that would allow property owners to be able to check and make sure that if somebody has a criminal conviction that that person could be prevented from moving into an apartment complex, for example, where you've got single mothers with young children. Every single day in this country, property owners use background checks to check on criminal records of people that are applying for housing. This has nothing to do with violations of the Fair Housing Act. It's just a basic common practice that property owners use every day to make sure that somebody that's looking to move into housing doesn't have a criminal record. Some property owners can look at that, and some property owners can choose not to be concerned about that. But many millions of property owners across the country do look at whether or not somebody has got a criminal conviction in determining whether or not they will rent them housing. It's not only to protect the property owner who has in many cases hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions of dollars, invested in that property, but also to protect the other residents who are renting property at that apartment. So this new rule that's come out jeopardizes the ability of those property owners to look and make sure that somebody doesn't have a criminal conviction on their record. What this amendment would do would just ensure that if the Department of Housing and Urban Development goes forward with this rule, that the rule won't prevent somebody from using a tool that has been in the hands of property owners for generations just to make sure that somebody doesn't have a criminal conviction when they're moving into this housing unit that they own. Again, I will use the example of a sex offender. There are sex offenders in most States, including my State of Louisiana. There are strict requirements of what somebody has to comply with if they're a convicted sex offender. They have to register, and they have to do a lot of other things. But if somebody doesn't comply with that law--and there are always cases we find of people who don't comply with that law--you don't know if when you're renting property to somebody whether or not they are a sex offender. But if you choose to do that background check and see if they've got that criminal conviction on their record, then you can say: Wait a minute, you're not coming into my apartment complex and jeopardizing the safety of those young children that already rent from me because we're going to make sure that if you've got that background check that shows that you're a sex offender, you're going to be denied. Yet this new rule jeopardizes their ability to carry out what is a basic enforcement mechanism that property owners all across the country use every day to protect their properties. We just want to make sure that as it relates to criminal convictions, that property owners can continue to look at that and make sure that that is something that they're not going to be found in violation of a law if they use that mechanism. This is a simple amendment. I would urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I want to thank the gentleman from California for yielding. I also want to thank Chairman King of New York, as well as Ranking Member Thompson of Mississippi, for cosponsoring this commonsense legislation. What we're trying to do is reform a process that was started back in 2006 that really has created a lot of complications for our transportation workers. What we're talking about is 2 million Americans not only across the country, but some who work around the globe that are required by Federal law to have these Transportation Worker Identification Credentials not only to perform their jobs, but even to get promoted. So as these cards come up, whether you're applying for them for the first time or trying to get them renewed, you have to not only make one, but two in-person visits. When we talk about these visits, in many cases people have to take a day off of work for the first, and then another day off of work for the second visit because this is a card that they're required to have if they're going to be able to work in the transportation industry. The rule that was put in place by TSA really is unworkable and doesn't really make sense, especially as we're talking about safety. It has nothing to do with safety. It's just a rule that they came up with that we recognize, number one, it's not in law, but it's something that we recognize, especially as we talk to our constituents who work in the transportation industry throughout the country, that this is creating tremendous burdens on our employees who have to actually miss work and miss pay that goes along with it. So we're talking about something that affects people's jobs and their careers and, in fact, in some cases has limited their ability to get promotions. I want to read parts of a letter that I received from Andrew Drury, who is an assistant cargo mate aboard the USS Mount Whitney. He's in the Merchant Marines, and this has been a problem to him. He wrote in to our office as he heard we were addressing this issue. He's a graduate of the Citadel and is employed by Military Sealift Command, a company that is tasked with supplying the U.S. Navy with anything from bombs, bullets, fuel and provisions to our Armed Forces. He works throughout Europe and Africa. He writes to say: ``Due to my long tours of duty overseas,''--his TWIC card has since expired, and-- ``I am not allowed to advance in rank or position without the current TWIC credential.'' He goes on to write: this means that anybody who currently works overseas has to take time off from work and fly back to the States twice. This is very expensive, time consuming, stressful, and ``because I live on a ship that constantly moves around is logistically impossible. Sir, I am writing you in hope that there is something you could do for my fellow Merchant Mariners and me in this precarious situation. So as we see that 2 million of our workers across the globe are facing this problem, this is a commonsense reform that actually puts some new reforms in place and puts some new rules in place that says you still make that first trip; but just like a passport, you shouldn't have to be required to take time off from work to go back a second time. Again, I appreciate over 40 cosponsors in a bipartisan way that have signed onto this. I would urge approval of this legislation.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady from Tennessee for yielding time and also for bringing this amendment forward to instruct the conferees on the transportation bill. If you look at what the amendment, what the motion to instruct, is saying, first of all, we recognize that 39 States have already put laws on the books to address problems with distracted drivers. It's a national problem. But every State, just as they have the right and the responsibility to create their own laws on issuing driver's licenses, each State has their own age requirements, their own speed limit requirements. Each State has to look at the unique problems that are posed by distracted drivers within that State. In fact, in our State of Louisiana, we have a ban on texting while driving. And the legislature has gone back and forth on other forms of whether or not you can use a cell phone with a Bluetooth or with a speaker in your car if it's enabled to do that. And so technology changes, and the local States have the ability to be flexible enough to change their laws according to how it best suits their State. Ultimately, by having a $79 million pot of money that would be up to the Secretary of Transportation to enforce as Federal distracted- driving laws, I think it gets away from the whole concept of the fact that States are the ones that are in charge of doing this, and the States know best what needs to happen in their States. Driving laws in Louisiana are a lot different than they are in California or New York or somewhere else. That's what the 10th Amendment is all about. That's why you have elected officials at the State and local levels to handle the problems that are unique to each area. And the fact that you've got a $79 million pot of money that would only be put at the discretion of the Secretary of Transportation, just for this purpose, instead of using the $79 million to build roads throughout the country, or to allow the States to do what they think is best to improve safety in other ways, there are many things that need to be done in each of our States to improve safety on the roads. And if a State's done a good job of addressing their texting problems and the distracted-driving problems as it relates to cell phones and other things, somebody eating and sitting in their car, ultimately the States know best what to do. And if they've got more flexibility with the money--this isn't Washington money, by the way. They're paying into it. Every citizen back home, when they buy gasoline, is paying taxes. This is their money. It's not the Federal Government's money to say $79 million is only available for the things that we think are most likely to increase safety, when the States know what's better. Local people on the ground, people paying those taxes know what's better to increase safety. And you're not allowing them to use that money for the things that actually would improve safety even more. So by limiting this $79 million to a fund that the Secretary himself in Washington would give out, let's let the States have that money back, money that they've paid in already, and let them do what they know is best to increase safety, whether they think it's putting guardrails on roads where the guardrails have broken off and they don't have the money to put that back in place, or whether it's to put railroad crossings. We have so many deaths by people who cross railroads where there's no crossing, and yet it's very expensive to build those. States would like the ability to use the money to increase safety and stop the deaths that occur by spending it there. Yet this $79 million isn't allowed for that. Let the States do what they know best because it's their money. It's the people's money. It's not Washington's money. And some Washington bureaucrat who thinks he knows best how to handle a problem at a Federal level that applies to all States when it works differently in every State, the challenges, the safety challenges that face our citizens are very different in each State, especially as it relates to driving on the road. So, again, I want to thank the gentlelady for bringing this motion to instruct. I surely support the motion and also encourage everybody else in this Chamber to support it because, ultimately, if you've got $79 million that can be much better used to increase safety in other ways, why would you want to cordon it off and only allow it to be used for one way, when maybe 39 different States have 39 different ideas of how to do it better? Well, we can learn from them for once instead of trying to have this top-down approach where Washington knows best. I think it could be handled much differently, much better at the local level. At the end it's their money anyway. So I urge approval of this motion to instruct.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for his leadership and for bringing this legislation to put a good energy policy in place in this country, which we do not have today under President Obama. If you look at components of the bill, it talks about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The President has used the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as his bailout fund, basically, for his failed policies. He's raided it. Last year he raided 30 million barrels from SPR and still, to this day, hasn't replaced that oil. But on top of that, the President took those dollars, billions of dollars, and spent them on unrelated government spending. So that's what the President's been doing with SPR--using it as his personal piggy bank and bailout fund for his failed policies. The President and others like to talk about an all-of-the-above strategy. They love to talk about energy production never being higher. One thing they fail to mention is that energy production on Federal lands, where the Federal Government actually has control, is down. In fact, President Obama's own administration, the Energy Information Agency, confirmed again recently that production this year on Federal lands is down 30 percent just in the Gulf of Mexico from last year. So they talk about production being higher. It's higher on private lands where they have no control. And by the way, through EPA and Department of the Interior and other Federal agencies they're trying to regulate and shut that down right now, too. So while they're bragging about it, they're trying to shut it down. Just today, in New Orleans they had a lease sale; first lease sale we've had in more than 2 years. And in fact, it shows that there's tremendous interest in exploring for American energy. The only problem is there is no more plan in place. Normally, you always have a 5-year plan in this country. By law, the President's supposed to have a 5-year plan. After today, there's nothing on the books for any more future lease sales. And, in fact, the proposal that the President has been sitting on shuts off 85 percent of the areas that were getting ready to be opened up for exploration. And what does that lead to? It leads to a greater dependency on Middle Eastern oil, on these foreign countries that don't like us. The President has shipped tens of thousands of energy jobs out of this country. We've tracked rigs that have left the states and gone to places like Egypt and Ghana and Brazil. Those jobs ought to be here. We ought to be creating those jobs here and seeking energy independence, and this bill is a great start. I urge its support.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve.

Mr. SCALISE. The amendment that I bring forward zeroes out the Open World Leadership Center. This is a subset of the Library of Congress. This is an agency that's received millions of dollars over the years-- in fact, $123 million over the past 10 years--to bring foreign government leaders from countries like Russia and others to the United States, something that might be a good idea but, frankly, when you consider the fact that we're running massive deficits, have a mountain of debt that keeps building up, we have to cut back programs that we just can't afford to do. And clearly, this is one of those programs. I do applaud the chairman and the committee for reducing this account. Although it's been reduced, there's still a million dollars remaining in the account. Ultimately, what we do is completely eliminate that funding. The reason that we're doing this, if you go back--and we've looked at the Congressional Record over the years, going back to 2009--Congress has been very clear to this agency, the Open World Leadership Center, that it's time for them to stop receiving government money. Just look at the comments from April 21 of 2010. At the time, Chairman Wasserman Schultz said: Our subcommittee's stated goal has been that we would begin to wean you off your reliance on Legislative Branch funding, so it is somewhat difficult for me to understand why you have asked for $2 million more in funding. This is an agency, Mr. Chairman, that has shown an unwillingness to work with Congress who for years now has said it's time for you to stop getting government money. This isn't some new development. This is something that Republicans and Democrats have agreed on for years, and it's finally time for that government funding to end. And if they want to continue doing the work they do, they can still go seek private funding, which, by the way, Congress encouraged them to do years ago, but they refused to do that because they still had the ability to get government money. As long as we leave a million in this account, we continue to allow this agency, the Open World Leadership Center, to function when we've now, as a policy decision, finally said it's time for them to go. So with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to close, and I would first like to address some of the issues that were brought up during this discussion. As it relates to the idea of having exchanges with people from foreign countries, that's why we have a State Department. And, in fact, the State Department has programs that do just that. The Open World Leadership Center is a program run by the Library of Congress. If this program were so important to national security and relations with foreign countries, then the State Department would pick it up, but they haven't chosen to do that because they already do programs that are similar. But they probably do it a lot more effectively, and it's a lot more coordinated with the State Department because it's run out of the State Department. So now you have a separate, duplicative program that Congress, both Republican and Democrat Members, for 3 years now has been saying, It's time for you to go. And I go back again to the June 2009 committee hearing. The committee recommendation begins a phaseout of Legislative Branch financial support for the Open World program. That was the committee recommendation in 2009. Republicans weren't running the House back then. That was under Democratic leadership. And of course in 2010, the chairman at the time, Ms. Wasserman Schultz from the opposing party said: Our subcommittee's stated goal has been that we would begin to wean you off your reliance on Legislative Branch funding. Yet that same year, they asked for $2 million more. This is an agency that just doesn't get it, and this represents what's wrong with Washington when we're going broke. We are going broke right now. Every single day, every dollar spent here in Washington, 42 cents of that dollar is borrowed money, borrowed from countries like China, sending the bill to our kids and our grandkids. And here we've got a program that even Congress, Republican and Democrats, said it's time for the program to end, and yet they still have a million dollars sitting in their budget. So what you would have is seven employees. They have a staff of seven people. So you've taken $10 million away, and I applaud, again, the chairman for doing that. So you've said there will be no more program. There will be no more exchange. That's been a decision already made by the committee, the subcommittee. But you're leaving seven people to be paid to do absolutely nothing with money we don't have. Now, how many small businesses across the country that have been facing these tough economic times are given a million-dollar check by the Federal Government to close down? Unfortunately, so many businesses have closed down because times are tough, but they don't get a million dollars from the Federal Government to do it, especially with money borrowed from China. And now I would go to address the CBO issue. We actually asked CBO about this amendment. We asked them on Monday. Here's a letter from CBO. On Monday they said: At this point, we estimate that your amendment would have no score. So there is no cost to doing this, but it is a million dollars less that we'll be borrowing from China. And at some point they say a million dollars here, a million dollars there, pretty soon you're talking about real money. We need to start making these tough decisions, and, frankly, this one isn't that tough. We ought to eliminate this program. And I yield back the balance of my time.

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