Steve Scalise

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I thank my colleague from Louisiana for his comments, and I just urge all of our colleagues to vote for this amendment so that we can actually use money to do real projects instead of to fund the bureaucracy of Washington. Especially when we're actually reducing the workload that they have to do, let's actually shift that money over to an area where we can actually increase jobs, protect our Nation, protect our energy and infrastructure that benefits the entire country. With that, I would urge passage of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to present this amendment. What we're doing is we're transferring $10 million from the Department of Energy salary and expenses account over the Corps of Engineers' construction account. The reason this is critical is because it allows us to move forward on infrastructure improvements, including in Louisiana something that we've been trying to do to restore our coast and get moving on the Louisiana coastal area, which is one of many projects in the Corps' budget that is backlogged and not funded, and yet is critical for improving infrastructure, for creating jobs, and for doing things to protect our wetlands. Mr. Chairman, I bring this football because in Louisiana we lose one football field of land every hour along the gulf coast in Louisiana due to coastal erosion. We have a plan that we put forth. Governor Bobby Jindal and his team have a solid plan in place that they've moved forward on. Mr. Chair, this is an authorized program. We're just trying to make sure that this program can move forward like so many others across the country that would improve our waterways and would strengthen our coastlines. You've got salaries that are being funded for projects now. And if you look at the Department of Energy, we've actually cut back on a lot of the work that they do at the Department of Energy. Rightfully so. They are eliminating programs that are unnecessary, and yet their salaries still continue to go up. You know, we ask people to do more with less. In this case, they're doing less with more, and so we're moving money out of a salaries account for people that are doing less work and moving it into actually doing coastal projects, actually doing work that improves our coasts and strengthens the area, protects the vital infrastructure for the oil and gas industry that feeds this Nation's energy needs and the seafood that feeds this Nation's great taste for great things like shrimp and oysters and crabs. This is a bipartisan amendment, and I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond) for helping us with this amendment. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond).

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady from California for the bipartisan work that she's done on this legislation. Especially, I want to thank Chairman Upton and Chairman Walden for allowing us to bring this bipartisan legislation forward that takes a commonsense approach to so many reports and requirements that are placed on industry and the FCC, frankly, that require a whole lot of work to produce reports that are outdated before they're even filed. The job of government and regulators should not be just to make companies go and do busy work, to file reports just for the sake of building up reams and reams of papers that nobody can read and nobody can really do anything with because the data is not useful. So what we're doing with this legislation is taking eight reports-- eight reports that all look at very specific sector areas, but don't really tell a picture of what's happening in the industry--and we consolidate those into one report rather than annual, a biannual, and reducing a lot of requirements on business that just have to have these compliance departments because when they're asked by the FCC to provide data, they've got to go provide it, even though they know this data is not going to be used, and in some cases the data is not going to be useful in the context of the report that's going to be filed. In addition to that, we often hear about all of the laws that are passed in Congress. People say why don't you go and repeal laws that have been sitting on the books for decades that serve no purpose. So we actually do that too with this bill. We go and repeal 12 different reports that are no longer used. As the example has been given a number of times, the telegraph report that is still a law that's on the books, we repeal that as well. So it's a commonsense approach that tells the people that are out there building this infrastructure, building these wireless networks that so many people, millions and millions of people, in our country use every single day to improve their lives, their quality of life--and frankly the effectiveness of the job creators and our small businesses out there--and it says you don't need to have massive compliance departments to comply with things that nobody reads. You can actually go out and use those resources to create more jobs, to build out that network so that we can do even more innovative things with the technology we have today and that we'll have in the future. With that, I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 3310, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a member of the committee and subcommittee.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we're bringing forward H.R. 3310, the FCC Consolidated Reporting Act. If you look throughout the many different requirements that the FCC has, and the number of reports--this is just a small stack of the reports that FCC has been required to bring to Congress just in the last 2 years. Many of these reports not only place tremendous burden on the industry groups that have to provide this data, but many times, because of the way that they're structured, by the time the report is issued, the data is outdated and really doesn't look at any broad spectrum issues. They're mostly specific to an industry and a specific area of an industry instead of looking at the entire marketplace. So what we're doing with the FCC Consolidated Reporting Act is actually bringing forward a measure that reduces the size of government and actually reins in the heavy hand of government and takes eight different annual reports and consolidates them into one consolidated biannual report. And so you're taking eight reports that in many cases are outdated by the time they're released; and, in some cases the FCC, even though they're required to produce this data annually, because the reports are so burdensome on industry and on the FCC, they're not even able to produce these reports annually. In many cases, we've had reports that are due annually that haven't been submitted to us since 2009. So we're actually making a much more commonsense approach to this reporting system. In addition to that, we're actually repealing some of the requirements that are still on the books--laws that Congress has passed over the last few decades that are not even required anymore by FCC or other agencies yet are still on the law books. And so we're cleaning up a lot of those. One of those I'll give as an example is we're still requiring a competitiveness report to be produced with the wire-line telegraph industry. I don't know anybody since Samuel Morse invented that technology in the 1800s that is still using that technology on a broad scale. But surely Congress doesn't need to still have on the books a requirement that we have a report submitted by the FCC on competitiveness in the wire-line telegraph industry. So this bill is a bipartisan approach to remove so many unnecessary requirements on our job creators who have to have compliance departments to comply with all these requests from the FCC; and, in many cases, they're getting these requests, and they know that when they submit this data the reports that they're submitting the data for aren't even going to be produced annually. And when those reports come out, they're going to be outdated, yet you still have to have massive compliance departments to go and gather all this information. I think it makes much more sense for us to tell our job creators that, instead of having these massive compliance departments to do unnecessary work, that dollar would be much better spent going out and creating jobs and building out those wireless networks that people all across this country so desperately need. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the chairman of the Telecommunications Subcommittee.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3310) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to consolidate the reporting obligations of the Federal Communications Commission in order to improve congressional oversight and reduce reporting burdens, as amended.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for yielding. I want to rise in strong support of the gentleman from Georgia's motion to instruct. This is a strong bipartisan motion that has support not only in the Halls of Congress, but also has support amongst the American people as they look at this proposal. Keystone, our friend in Canada, they have vast oil reserves, and they're going to extract those reserves whether they're used in America or whether they're used in China. So the question is not whether or not Canada is going to go and explore their oil sands, it's whether or not we get the oil from a friend in Canada--1 million barrels a day when it's in operation--or we continue to become more reliant on Middle Eastern oil, oil from countries, in many cases, that use the money that we send--the billions of dollars a day we send to them--against us, against our troops. We have an opportunity to do many things here. We can help secure America's energy independence by saying that's 1 million barrels a day less that we need to get from Middle Eastern countries who don't like us, we can get it from a friend in Canada. They want to send it to us. And oh, by the way, it's going to create about 20,000 American jobs upfront. There's much more to come. The estimates are even higher long term once the pipeline is in operation. This shouldn't even be a dilemma. It's not controversial to most people. Most people consider it a no-brainer--20,000 jobs, 1 million barrels a day of oil from a friend in Canada instead of other countries--and yet President Obama has said no. Now, he goes around giving speeches saying he's for all of the above. We've heard it time and time again, he's for all of the above. Maybe he's for all up above, but nothing below. Because if you say ``no'' to the Keystone pipeline, you're not for an all-of-the-above energy. You just look at the facts. We've got the opportunity to say ``yes'' to something that creates great jobs, and this transportation bill is the perfect place for it because this is infrastructure. We've got pipeline already running all throughout our country. Even if this amendment passes, Mr. Chairman, there's nothing that says that every State has to have the Keystone pipeline go through it. If there are any environmental issues, each State still has to permit the pipeline if it goes through their State. So each State still has the ability to say, look, we want to make sure the route fits best with our environment. That will happen anyway, even if it's approved. But if the President rejects Keystone, make no doubt about it, the oil will still be produced in Canada, except it will be sent to China, and the jobs will be sent to China, and the billions of dollars of private investment--this isn't one of those phony stimulus bills where we print a bunch of money we don't have and borrow it from China. This is actually real investment from private sources, and they want to spend those billions of dollars here in America. They want to create those jobs here in America. They want to help ensure our American energy independence right here at home, and the President keeps saying ``no.'' It's our opportunity to stand up in a bipartisan way and say this is something we all agree upon. Just because some radical environmentalists went and held a big rally over at the White House a few months ago, and literally 3 days later the President said, oh, wait, now I'm against Keystone. It's time for us to stand up and do the right thing--stand up for those American jobs, stand up for billions of dollars in private investment, and stand up for American energy security and say ``yes'' to the Keystone pipeline. I strongly support this motion.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, the amendment that I bring to the desk brings the two Agencies, EDA and Commerce, back to the pre-2008 spending levels. And as we're focusing on bringing overall spending in this bill, the CJS bill, to pre-2008 levels, I wanted to also bring those two Agencies in line on their overhead, and that's specifically what my amendment deals with. I want to first applaud the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia, for the work that he and his committee have done to start the process of reducing spending. We recognize that Washington has a spending problem, and some of us here are willing to do something about it and start forcing Washington to live within its means, and that means we have to start the process of setting priorities. One of the things that was done in the original CJS bill that's been filed is to implement a 52 percent cut to the programs that are implemented, for example, in EDA. And, again, I applaud the gentleman for making those improvements and those reforms in the base of the bill to actually bring the spending in those programs in line with pre-2008 levels. But one thing that was not done was the spending for the salaries and expenses, the overhead of those Agencies. So as the agencies are being trimmed back, their salaries and overheads are not being subsequently trimmed back, and so that's what we do in this amendment. We actually reduce spending to the point where we will save $18.2 million that will reduce the Federal deficit. Again, this is one small step in a large number of steps that we need to take as a body, but I want to talk a little bit about what these cuts will mean and what the subsequent corresponding cuts will mean to the cuts that have already been made in the programs themselves. I think there have been some good examples that have been shown of these programs, what EDA does and some of the money that's wasted. And when you go and you look through what these Agencies have spent money on--again, this is money we don't have--they've spent money on things like building a replica of the Great Pyramids, building a replica of the Great Wall of China. Two million dollars was spent giving money that we don't have to a city to build an amphitheater with a wine tasting room. I'm sure there are a lot of people in that amphitheater would like going to a wine tasting room, but there are a lot of places you can go in the private sector that already do that without borrowing money from China to go and build these things with money we don't have. And so, again, as the committee did the work of cutting 52 percent of the EDA program, they did make some cuts in the overhead, but not to bring it to the 2008 levels. So, as the bill currently stands, in its base form, these two Agencies will see a 25 percent increase in their overhead from the 2008 budget. So, in that 4-year period, even with the cuts that have already been made, these two Agencies still have a 25 percent increase in their spending. Now, keep in mind this is coming at a time when States, when local governments, when families in our districts back home have been cutting back, have actually been making due with less to live within their means, as everyone should when times get tough. And yet, in Washington, even though 42 cents of every dollar that's spent here is borrowed money, Washington still hasn't cut back subsequently to live within its means; and we've got to start that process, and that means setting priorities. These Agencies would still have, combined, $74 million to spend on their overhead. But at least it brings them back to their 2008 levels, just as the programs that they're administering have been brought back to 2008 levels. So think about it. You know, we're asking people to do more with less. If my amendment doesn't pass, they would be asked to do less with more. The programs that they administer are being cut, and yet the salaries and overhead are not being cut subsequently. We just had a district work period this last week. I go back home and I talk to small businesses throughout my district in southeast Louisiana, and what they tell me, the things that are holding them back from creating jobs are the regulations, the red tape, and the excessive spending coming out of Washington. Yet, if you look at this, you know, nobody in my district said that they need to see the Great Wall of China being built with taxpayer money. But what they do say is what's holding them back from creating jobs is borrowing money from China to spend on programs that we just can't afford to fund. So while I applaud the cutting of those programs, because the programs in the base of this bill have been cut, what hasn't been cut subsequently is the overhead to go along with it to bring it to those pre-2008 levels. This is a step we need to take to not only save $18.2 million that will reduce the deficit, but to start sending the signal that we're living within our means. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Small Business Tax Cut. Louisiana alone will see 80,000 small businesses that will be able to benefit from this and over 890,000 workers that will benefit from this. Yet my colleagues on the Democrat side maybe think that it's their money. They don't want those small businesses to be able to keep it, and they think that Washington can spend it better than the small businesses. How has that worked, by the way? They don't want small businesses to be able to keep some more of the hard-earned money that they make so they can invest it in their business. They'd rather keep it up here for critical Washington spending like the $535 million they blew on Solyndra, or maybe the $850,000 that Obama's GSA blew on the Vegas junkets. Those are the kind of things that they would rather see, and so they don't want those small businesses to be able to keep more of their hard-earned money. They want to keep taxing businesses. They've added over $1.9 trillion of new taxes in President Obama's own budget. We've tried it their way. More than 2 million Americans have lost their jobs since President Obama took office. How about we actually try letting small businesses keep more of their hard-earned money so they can create good jobs for hardworking taxpayers?

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding and for bringing this legislation forward and, specifically, want to talk about title III of this bill, and that deals with the RESTORE Act. Of course, this Friday will mark the 2-year anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. People all across the country saw for weeks and weeks oil coming into the Gulf of Mexico, destroying ecosystems, destroying economic industries. And yet, still to this day, there is no mechanism in place to dictate what should happen to those fines that BP and the other responsible parties will have to pay under the Clean Water Act. In this component, the RESTORE Act actually sets that policy out. And it was the result of a compilation of work by Republicans and Democrats from all five Gulf Coast States who came together and recognized that the most responsible thing to do would be to dedicate that money, 80 percent of those fines, to the Gulf Coast States so that we actually have revenue to go and restore the damage that's been done. I think most people recognize the right thing to do is to dedicate that money, not to send it up to Washington to be spent on things unrelated, but to actually allow us to restore the damage that was done in the Gulf of Mexico from that tragedy, and that's what this bill does. The mechanism is in place, and as we go to a conference committee, I feel very confident we can get to a point where we have the full RESTORE Act in the final product so that there is no question that there is a commitment from this Congress that the Gulf Coast States ought to have the ability to restore the damage that was done during that tragedy. Of course, another component of this bill is the Keystone pipeline. And I think as we look at the dilemma so many families are facing with escalating gas prices, the fact that you've got gas prices in some places already over $4 a gallon, experts predicting $5 a gallon gasoline, and here we have a friend in Canada saying that they want to send a million barrels a day of oil to America, which is a million barrels a day we don't have to get from these Middle Eastern countries who don't like us, sending billions of dollars to people, in essence, funding the enemy in some of these terrorist battles across the Middle East. We've got the ability to create 20,000 jobs and secure our energy security. I look forward to passage of this legislation.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from southwest Louisiana for bringing this amendment forward. As a proud cosponsor of the RAMP Act, I support this legislation because what we're trying to say here is that you've got people that have been paying into this fund. This Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund has been there for years, and people have been paying into it, and the intention all along was that money would be used to dredge our waterways and to upgrade our locks and to keep our infrastructure along our waterways up to date so that we can continue moving commerce, not only throughout this country, but to be able to export and to be able to get commerce through to other countries. The Panama Canal is getting ready to come on line in 2013, and even deeper draft vessels are going to be coming through. That means we've got to be able to meet that demand, otherwise we're going to lose that business to foreign nations. And yet here you have the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, and that money is not even being used for its intended purpose. We've got to ensure that the fund cannot be raided for other government spending. That's what this amendment does. It's something that will help us create jobs and increase the competitiveness of our workers, and it will keep that promise that has been made to those people who have been paying billions of dollars into this fund, and yet that fund hasn't been used properly. I support the amendment and urge its passage.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for bringing this amendment forward, this budget that implements what we would consider a balanced approach, and that's what we call cut, cap, and balance. That's what's so important about this amendment, this budget that we bring forward with the RSC, is that, number one, the most important thing is we finally control the wasteful Washington spending that has added mountains and mountains of debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren, which is just immoral. It's wrong and surely not fair to send the bill for all this spending to our children and grandchildren and continue it on autopilot, as President Obama's budget did-- President Obama's budget, by the way, which got no votes. Not even one Democrat voted for the President's budget. The contrast we bring here today is that in 5 years we will have a balanced budget under this amendment that's being brought forward. So we cut spending in areas where we've been needing to finally control spending like families are controlling spending back home. When families deal with tough economic times, they've already done this. They tighten their belts and they make do with what they've got and they live within their means. And Washington has refused to do it. We finally put those fiscal constraints in Washington. But then we also put caps in place so that until we get to a balanced budget, there's a freeze on discretionary spending so that we're able to finally get to what is ultimately a balanced Federal budget in 5 years. And we go further. Of course, we repeal ObamaCare, which is something that's been so devastating already to so many families that have lost the health care that they like, and so many other things like the tax increases that go with it--tax increases, by the way, which in many areas hit middle class families real hard. We abolish that. We even go further. We save Medicare. President Obama's budget actually escalates Medicare's bankruptcy. In 12 years--and this, by the way, is from President Obama's own Medicare actuaries--Medicare goes bankrupt. They're willing to sit by and let that happen. We're not willing to do that. We're going to save Medicare. This budget does that, too. It has those reforms that Chairman Ryan brought forward that actually put Medicare back on a sustainable growth path. And then we have commonsense tax reform that actually lowers overall rates. This is a great budget that's been brought forward that's finally responsible to address our problems.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I appreciate the gentleman from South Carolina for bringing up this debate. And this is the President's budget we're discussing. When you look at this resolution, this contains the same kind of language as any resolution that's brought to the floor contains. But let's talk about what it seems like some Members of the Democratic Party on the other side are so afraid to talk about, and that is what the President's budget really does. The President's budget never even comes close to balancing, first of all. So this President, who campaigned 4 years ago on reducing the deficit, on trying to bring fiscal responsibility to Washington, goes the opposite way, adding trillions more dollars of debt, mountains of debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren. What's worse, if you look at the policies, $1.9 trillion of job- killing tax increases. What does that mean to families? Hardworking families out there are looking at this, and they're knowing just what this is going to do to jobs in this country when you add another $1.9 trillion. Just look at one part. They love bragging about all the taxes they're raising on American oil. In fact, their budget, President Obama's budget that we're talking about right now, President Obama's budget adds $40 billion a year in new taxes on American energy. The irony is the President's tax increase on American energy doesn't apply to OPEC nations, so OPEC countries are now incentivized to send more oil here. But if you make it in America--it's in the President's budget, go look at it--$40 billion of new tax increases if you make it in America. What is that going to do to gas prices that are already skyrocketing under President Obama's policies? American families out there know what that means. If you add $40 billion a year in new taxes on American-made energy, that will only increase the price that is already too high. What's worse is that it kills American jobs because it says--and President Obama said this; in his budget President Obama says, if you're OPEC and you're sending us oil, we're not going to raise your taxes in the President's budget. But if you make energy in America, he'll raise taxes $40 billion a year. This is the most warped policy I've ever seen. I hope we reject it, and then take up the budget that we're going to present that actually puts us in balance and has good, sound policy to create jobs.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, the bill that we're bringing to the floor today to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board, this group of 15 unelected bureaucrats here in Washington, D.C., that, under the President's health care law, would be able to ration care for our Nation's seniors. I think most hardworking American families out there would much rather the decisions on health care to be made between a patient and a doctor, not some unelected bureaucrats to be allowed to ration our grandmother's care. So that's why we're repealing this law. Hopefully, it's going to be sent over to the Senate, and we'll finally be able to get some good bipartisan support over there. As part of this reform, we are also not just repealing, we're replacing with real commonsense medical liability reform. This is something that should have been in the President's law, but of course his law wasn't about reform; it was about a government takeover. We are actually putting in place legislation that would put commonsense medical liability reform in place. According to the Harvard School of Public Health, 40 percent of medical malpractice suits filed in the United States are ``without merit.'' Well, what does that do? That dramatically increases the cost of health care because so many doctors out there will tell you that many of the tests they run on us are not because of our health, to look at health outcomes; it's to avoid frivolous lawsuits. We finally addressed that, lowering the costs and improving quality of care.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Hastings, for his support and help on this. Despite the gentlelady from Florida's comments, the RESTORE Act actually has a broad range of support, not only from over 30 Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, but also from numerous outside groups, both on the environmental side and on the business side. I will include in the Record all of these letters from various business and environmental groups in support of the RESTORE Act. This amendment is a crucial first step towards ensuring that 80 percent of the BP Clean Water Act fines will be dedicated to help Gulf Coast States, and especially our fragile ecosystems along coastal Louisiana, to fully recover from the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Just the other day, parish president Billy Nungesser from Plaquemines Parish brought me these pictures that were taken just 2\1/2\ weeks ago from south Plaquemines' inner marsh where you can still see clearly dead turtles and oil in the marsh. We're going to be dealing with these impacts for years to come, Mr. Chairman, and we've seen from other disasters that the proper way to do this is by setting aside those funds to make sure that BP, the responsible parties, not the Federal Government, pay to restore that damage. The Associated General Contractors of America, Arlington, VA, October 17, 2011. Re H.R. 3096, the Gulf Coast Restoration Act. The Hon. Steve Scalise, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Scalise: The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) would like to thank you for supporting the recovery of the Gulf Coast region by introducing H.R. 3096, the Gulf Coast Restoration Act. This legislation will ensure that the penalties the federal government is owed are distributed in the best interest of the coastal communities. Under current law, the penalties acquired from BP and other responsible parties would go into the U.S. Treasury and the needed Gulf Coast restoration would receive no direct relief from these penalties. This legislation would ensure the vast majority of all civil penalties paid by BP or any other responsible party in connection with the Deepwater Horizon spill would be divided among the five Gulf Coast states most impacted by the spill. AGC is encouraged this legislation would promote the long- term ecological and economic recovery of the Gulf Coast region through the funding of infrastructure projects, including coastal flood protection, directly affected by coastal wetland losses, beach erosion, or the impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Once again, thank you for your efforts to address the environmental and economic impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, by providing recovery hinds to ensure the restoration of the natural resources in the Gulf Coast region. Sincerely, Marco A. Giamberardino, Senior Director, Federal and Heavy Construction Division.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Colorado, for yielding and for taking the lead on this hour dedicated to standing up for religious freedom. I also thank my colleague from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) for his leadership and for bringing forth legislation, of which I am a proud cosponsor, that would repeal the decision that President Obama came down with that is an attack on religious freedom. As a Catholic who attends church, it's rare when you see a Catholic priest talking from the pulpit, calling on the parishioners to call Congress, to contact Congress about any issue. Yet I want to applaud the Catholic bishops who have been so vocal in helping bring this issue to light, for standing up and saying, This is something that we will not comply with because it violates our own religious beliefs. The beauty of the Constitution--and especially when you look at the Bill of Rights--are the rights that it lays out to all Americans. And when you read that First Amendment, there is a reason why freedom of religion is included in the First Amendment placed in the Bill of Rights, because our Founders believed it was a right that was handed down to us from God through our Founding Fathers and that it was given to all American citizens. But yet the President came out with this ruling, and he says, Well, we'll tailor a little exemption just for places of worship. Not religious organizations, just places of worship. And everybody else, they're on their own. They've got religious beliefs that--they don't want to have to pay for abortion-inducing drugs, for example, which the President mandated. Then the President basically said, No, you have to do this, even if it violates your religious beliefs. That violates the First Amendment of the Constitution. It violates the Bill of Rights. No President has the ability to violate the Bill of Rights, those constitutional rights we have. And then the President, just a few days ago, came out with what he called ``an accommodation,'' an accommodation where he said, Okay, we'll carve out a little more exception. It still doesn't apply to an employer, for example, that has those same religious beliefs, so we'll carve out an exemption. Well, guess what? After the President carved out that exemption, so to speak, they actually issued a final rule. This is the final rule from the Obama administration after he gave a press conference, a political speech. And in the final rule, it says, ``These regulations finalize, without change, interim final regulations.'' In other words, they didn't even put any of the things from the President's press conference where he said he was going to give accommodations. None of that is in the final rule. The final rule still says, if you're a Catholic school, for example, or a Catholic Church--and I know Colorado Christian University is one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit because they would face a $500,000 fine under this rule. Even if the President gave a press conference, you can't go to court and say, Look, I'm not going to comply with this rule, because they're going to say, Well, you have to comply; it's the law. And they will say, Oh, but the President gave a speech saying I don't have to. It's still in the rule. Again, any President who thinks that he has the power to issue accommodations to the Bill of Rights is a President who thinks he's got the ability to take away that Bill of Rights. He doesn't have that. And that's why I'm so proud to stand here with my colleague from Colorado and so many others that have stood up and said, we are going to stand up and defend those religious freedoms that are so precious, not just for religious organizations, but for all Americans, as is called for in the Bill of Rights. So it's an important issue that we need to keep fighting for because this is all a component of the President's health care law. I remember back in those days when the President stood right here on this House floor at that podium and he looked at all Members of Congress and he said, If you like what you have, you can keep it. Do you remember that? All Americans heard that. Time and time again, the President said, If you like the health insurance you have, you can keep it. Guess what: With this ruling, he broke that promise he made to the American people because if you're a religious organization and you like the fact that you don't have to provide--and you are not going to provide--abortion-inducing drugs because it violates your own conscience, the President is now saying, You can't keep it. You have to abide by my ruling. That goes against the will. And if you are a religious organization that is self-insured, they're left out of this too. There are so many problems with this. I'm glad that they're fighting it in the courts. But the bottom line is, they shouldn't have to go to the court to defend the First Amendment. That should be something that's sacrosanct. The President shouldn't be trying to violate and attack our religious freedoms. I appreciate the gentleman for his leadership tonight.