Steve Scalise

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).

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

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As we approach the 2-year anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, my amendment sets up the Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund and requires that 80 percent of the Clean Water Act fines will be directed to the fund for the purposes of restoring the ecosystems and economies that were directly impacted by the oil spill. This amendment shares strong bipartisan support and is the first step in ensuring that the Gulf Coast States have the ability to recover from the largest environmental disaster in our country's history. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I would remind my colleague from Florida that this legislation actually is the only instrument available that is germane to this legislation, that does direct 80 percent of those BP fines to the Gulf Coast States, as the President's commission and many others have called for who support our legislation, the RESTORE Act, by the way. With that, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bonner).

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland).

Mr. SCALISE. Can I inquire the balance of the time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SCALISE. I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).

Mr. SCALISE. I am prepared to close, Mr. Chairman, so I would reserve and allow the gentlelady from Florida to close.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 3261.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding. Let's look at President Obama's record after his first 3 years. President Obama has left us a record of debt, despair, and downgrades, and here we are today debating whether or not President Obama is able to go grab another $1.2 trillion that he adds to the debt of our Nation that our children and grandchildren are going to have to pay. The reason we were downgraded is because President Obama himself has still refused to put a plan forward to balance the Federal budget, his budget that he purported and pushed forth doubles the national debt in his first 5 years. And then, of course, he becomes the first President in the history of our Nation to have our debt rating, the debt rating of the United States, downgraded. You know, you look at the despair as Americans are trying to get jobs. We're getting reports today that President Obama is going to reject the Keystone pipeline, turning his back on 20,000 American families who were looking for those good jobs here in America, making us more dependent on Middle Eastern countries who don't like us. You know, the Canadians, who are a good friend of ours, wanted to send oil down to America. That's oil we don't have to be buying from Middle Eastern countries. Instead, the President is going to, as we're hearing reports of today, is going to turn his back on those 20,000 jobs. And he's going to send that oil and those jobs to China. Now how preposterous is that? As the President is trying to rack up more debt on the Nation's credit card, which we're debating here today, at the same time he's turning his back and running 20,000 more jobs out of this country. That's the record of this administration. That's what President Obama has given us, and you wonder why we've had over 8 percent unemployment for almost every single month he's been President. We can't afford the Obama economy. It's time for a change. We need to reject this increase in the debt ceiling. Stop spending money that we don't have.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentlelady from Tennessee. I think it's been clear what's been laid out, the decision that should be made by President Obama. Unfortunately, he continues to drag his feet, tries to punt on this issue; but ultimately a decision's going to have to be made if we're going to be able to get those 20,000 jobs here in America or whether or not they're going to go to China, who's also asking for them. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, you are going to be hearing a lot, and we're all going to be talking a lot, about the Keystone pipeline. And the reason that we're talking a lot about it is that between now and February 21, President Obama has a decision to make. President Obama has been tasked by this Congress to make a decision by February 21 on whether or not to approve the Keystone pipeline. Now, the President, frankly, should have approved this project months ago when, back in August, the State Department, which was tasked by the President to make a recommendation, was getting ready to actually make a recommendation to move forward on the Keystone pipeline. And of course what we're talking about is creating jobs in America. There will be 20,000 American jobs created if the President moves forward with the Keystone pipeline. But also American energy security is at stake here. The President has continued to punt this issue. In fact, just a few months ago, the President tried to push this issue off until after the election. Just right after the State Department was getting ready to say, Let's go forward with the Keystone pipeline, all of a sudden, some of the radical environmental groups came forward. And these radical environmental groups, who are against any form of American-created energy that doesn't involve wind and solar power--whether it's oil, gas, nuclear--they're against all American energy. So these radical environmental groups went and had a protest over at the White House. And they intimidated this President enough to where President Obama said, okay, he's going to push it off until after the election, thinking that he could just hide behind radical environmentalists and say, Oh, well, we've got to look at the environmental issues. Well, this has nothing to do with whether or not it's good for the environment because, frankly, the State Department looked at the environmental issues already. President Obama knows that. The State Department looked at these environmental concerns and said they're not there. In fact, if the President approved Keystone tomorrow and said yes to those American jobs, the Canadian Government and the company that would be building the pipeline would still have to comply with the environmental laws of every single State that that pipeline would go through. So it's not a question of whether or not Keystone would comply with the environmental laws. They have to comply with all the environmental laws. But what is at stake is whether or not we're going to take these 20,000 jobs in America or whether those jobs are going to be shipped to China because China's already said that they want the Keystone oil, they want the oil that would be created by these oil sands in Canada. So the question is, Are we going to have that oil from Canada sent into America, or is that oil going to go to China? And of course what that really means is, Are we going to take the 20,000 jobs in America, or is President Obama going to send those 20,000 jobs to China? What does President Obama have against the creation of 20,000 American jobs? The President loves to give all these speeches, talking about the middle class. And, Mr. Speaker, when the President talks about the middle class, he can't say that he supports the middle class if he rejects the Keystone pipeline because he'll be turning down 20,000 American jobs that will be coming down with over $7 billion of private investment that's coming from one of our best partners in the world, Canada. Canada is a great trading partner with America. If the Keystone pipeline is built in America and we start partnering with and taking about 700,000 barrels a day of oil from Canada, that's oil that we don't have to get from Middle Eastern countries who don't like us. So look at the policy. First of all, if they do this, they have to comply with the environmental laws not only in the United States but in every State that it goes through. So the environmental issues don't exist that the President raises. But what is at stake is whether or not we are going to get 20,000 American jobs and whether or not we're going to get oil from our friend Canada or are we going to get oil from Middle Eastern countries who don't like us. So that is what this debate is about. Between now and February 21, the President has got to decide whether or not he's going to say yes to American jobs or is he going to side with his radical environmentalist friends who went over to the White House and threatened him and all of this kind of foolishness and said that they want to send that oil to China. The good news is that the President doesn't really have to decide whether or not that's going to happen because he can just go look at what his own State Department said. The State Department said that they think those jobs should stay in America. But the President has got to decide whether he is going to side with the radical environmentalists or whether he's going to side with American families and workers who just want jobs and want American energy security. And, frankly, if we've got a choice--because our demand for oil hasn't gone down--it's a question of whether or not we want oil from Canada who's a friend or from Middle Eastern countries who are not and if we want to create 20,000 American jobs. So that is what is at stake between now and February 21. With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge, first of all, the President to side with America in the creation of 20,000 jobs and to approve the Keystone pipeline.

Mr. SCALISE. I yield to the gentlelady from Tennessee.

Mr. SCALISE. The gentlelady from Tennessee is correct. In fact, when you look at the timeline for Keystone--as you said, it's been 40 months. And the thing here is that the State Department has done the review. The President right now is trying to give some indication that now February 21 might not be enough time for him when, in fact, he's had much longer than the normal process for any review. But he's also got the approval from the State Department because there is one other big factor here. There is also the fact that China is out there saying they want the oil. So as America, through President Obama, is saying that he doesn't want to do it or he wants to delay it until after the election, where Canada has indicated they can't wait until after the election in November, they've got to make a decision. And they want to send the oil to the United States of America because we're great trading partners. But if President Obama keeps saying no, China right now is saying they want the oil. So we don't have an unlimited amount of time for the President to keep kowtowing to his radical environmentalist friends and try to kick the can down the road. A decision needs to be made; and February 21 is that date that's currently available, and we're trying to push the President to make that decision in the affirmative way and say yes to those 20,000 jobs that would be created here. With that, I will be happy to yield to the gentlelady from Tennessee.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding. What we're talking about here today, Mr. Speaker, is the difference between passing a tax policy that would only last 2 months or passing a tax policy that lasts the entire year. During this next week and a half, while families are sitting at home doing their budget for next year, they're going to be making their budget for the entire year 2012, not for just 2 months. And yet what the Senate sent over is a plan that only kicks the can down road, and we'd be right back here again having this same debate in 2 months. People are sick and tired of this kind of absurd action from Congress. If you look at early civics courses, anybody that takes their first civics course knows that when there's a difference between the House and the Senate--as there is here--then the two sides appoint conferees, they get together and they work out those differences. That's what the legislative process is about. And clearly we have a difference. We think the policy should be for an entire year, as even the President has said, and the Senate sent us over a 2-month patch that doesn't even fix the problem. In fact, outside groups like the National Federation of Independent Businesses said this would hurt small businesses. And yet what do we get from the other side? Minority Leader Pelosi, Mr. Speaker, said she will not appoint any House Democrats to participate in the negotiations. She just said this last night. So in the spirit of Christmas, you've got the minority leader saying she's just going to take her toys and go home. That's not the responsible thing to do. Let's stay here, let's get the policy right, let's do our work, and let's have the Senate do their work, too, for the American people.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding. I think one of the strongest components of this bill that we're bringing to the floor today is the jobs component that's contained in the Keystone pipeline bill. If you'll look at what we're trying to do right now, we've got some options here. The American people are clamoring for jobs. We've got the ability to force President Obama to get off the sidelines. The President has been good about running all around the country, giving these political speeches and campaigning. He's talking about jobs, and he's talking about the middle class. Yet here we have an opportunity to create 20,000 middle class jobs in America, and the President is saying ``no.'' The President said he'll veto the bill over this one provision. Now, think about that. There is a bill that deals with unemployment benefits, and the President is saying he'd rather people be unemployed than to actually get jobs. They would much rather have jobs than be unemployed. Yet there is the ability to create 20,000 American jobs with the Keystone pipeline, and the President is turning his back on those middle class families. There is over $7 billion of private investment. We can increase America's energy security. If that oil comes from Canada, our dependence on Middle Eastern oil can drop dramatically. We can eliminate a million barrels a day when this comes online, and we can reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Let's create American jobs. What does President Obama have against 20,000 American jobs? I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding me this time to speak about this important issue. I really want to thank him for bringing this to the floor because this is one of those rare bipartisan pieces of legislation that Congress brings forward that is so critical to the future of our country. You know, a balanced budget amendment is an idea that is long overdue. If you look at where we are right now, some of the biggest challenges facing our country come from the fact that Washington continues to spend money it doesn't have. This Nation just passed the $15 trillion threshold in debt. Just in the last 2\1/2\ years since President Obama has been in office, another $5 trillion, mountains of debt that have been added to the backs of our children and grandchildren. It is irresponsible to keep dumping this debt onto future generations. It hurts America's ability to grow, it holds America's promise back, and it has got to stop. If you look at what is important about this debate, a balanced budget amendment will finally bring permanent accountability and force Washington to start living within its means, to tell Washington you can't keep spending money you don't have. And yet you listen to this debate and there are Republicans and Democrats supporting this concept that's long overdue to require a balanced Federal budget; but, of course, there are opponents as well. If you listen to what some of the opponents have been saying, they call it reckless. Forty-nine States do this, families all across the country balance their budget, and they call it reckless to live within our means. What I would finally say in conclusion is that we have got to put these reins on Washington spending. We've got to give this promise to the next generation. Stop playing politics. Let's pass this amendment.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding and especially for his leadership in bringing the Protect Life Act to the floor of the House of Representatives. When we look at a time right now when our country is going broke, it's offensive to most Americans that taxpayer money can still be used to subsidize abortion in this country. We had this debate during the President's health care law. We've tried to put real language that would protect that from happening. Unfortunately, we weren't able to get that protection. For those of us that want to repeal the President's health care law completely, we've already passed that bill and sent it to the Senate and they've taken no action. But we're here today to address specifically this problem and say there should be no taxpayer money that is allowed to be used to subsidize abortion. And if you look in the bill, there are employers out there who are providing good health care to their employees today; yet under the law that the President passed and signed into law, Federal officials can tell those private employers that they have to provide abortion services in their policy, and so they'll just drop the policy. This prevents that from happening as well. It gives conscience protections so that if there's a medical professional that doesn't want to participate in abortion, they don't have to. These are all commonsense proposals that should pass and have bipartisan support, and they should also pass the Senate.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky for yielding. I really want to thank him for bringing this jobs bill to the House floor. This legislation, this EPA regulatory reform bill, is critical to saving tens of thousands of jobs--over 100,000 jobs--in America that are at risk if the EPA is able to get away with yet another radical regulation they're trying to implement. When I go throughout southeast Louisiana and talk to job creators, our small business owners--the people who are struggling in this tough economy but who still want to try to create jobs--and when I ask them, What are the things that are holding you back from creating jobs, from having your business grow so that more people can have great opportunities to live the American Dream?, there is a consistent theme that they all say, that it's the regulations coming out of Washington, D.C., coming out of the Obama administration. That is the prime reason that is holding them back from creating good jobs in this country. Of course, we've seen it in southeast Louisiana--we've got tough times--but if you go all throughout the country, you'll see the same thing. Just look at the numbers from outside groups that have actually tried to figure out just how devastating the impact would be of just this boiler regulation if it were to go into effect by the EPA. Over 1,500 boilers across this country are at risk, and you're talking about over 230,000 jobs. Just look at some of the States--I mean, the State of North Carolina, the State of Indiana, the States of Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania. Each of those States will lose over 10,000 jobs if this radical EPA regulation goes into effect. The President is running around the country, saying, Pass this bill. He was saying pass this bill before he even filed the bill. Here is an actual bill on the floor of the House of Representatives that will save over 230,000 jobs that will be lost; yet the President wants to ram through this radical regulation anyway in spite of the fact that all those jobs will be lost. I think the American people understand what's going on. They're saying sanity needs to be reinvoked in Washington in this administration. Stop running jobs out of the country. Let's put commonsense reforms in place. This bipartisan legislation does that.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, this House and this Congress need to be focused on job creation. In fact, this House has passed scores of legislation out of the House over to the Senate that would create millions of American jobs. Yet the Senate refuses to take any action on them. And what do we get from the President? We get more of the same class warfare and failed stimulus legislation. Of course, his first stimulus was such a disaster. We had a hearing last week that exposed the Solyndra scandal. That's the company that the President used as the poster child for the stimulus bill 2 years ago. And what happened? The taxpayers are on the hook right now for over $530 million of money that was thrown away by this company that the President called a year ago the ``future of this country.'' Well, I don't want a future of bankruptcy, I don't want a future of scandal, and I don't want a future of the radical regulations and this class warfare that this President has given to this country. We need to create American jobs. We need to get these crazy regulations off the backs of our small business owners and create jobs in America.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, tonight the President is going to be addressing this Chamber, and the focus is going to be on jobs. Frankly, I hope that the President doesn't give us an instant replay of the first 2 years of his administration, where he tries to push more stimulus spending that didn't work, where he tries to push more bailouts to States that didn't work. What we need to focus on are commonsense solutions that can bring us all together that will actually be proven to create jobs. If you look at some of the legislation we've already passed out of the House, just to get our people back to work, exploring for American energy could create over 250,000 jobs. There are free trade agreements for Panama, Colombia, and South Korea sitting on the President's desk, trade agreements he has refused to act on, that would create over 350,000 American jobs. There is bill after bill, but there is regulation after regulation that is holding back our ability to create jobs as you talk to small business owners across the country. The President even acknowledged when he rolled back the ozone standard that EPA is out of control. We've got to roll back these crazy regulations that are killing jobs as well. That's the solution to this problem that will get our economy back on track.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, as we are dealing with this debate over the debt limit, I think one thing that's become clear as people have followed over the last few weeks is that Washington has a spending problem. And regardless of the resolution of today's action in the House and Senate, I hope nobody thinks that this is the end of this debate. Frankly, this is just the beginning of the debate to finally cut spending in Washington and put real controls in place. I think as we look over the next few months, we need to continue to push for a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution because ultimately that's the kind of accountability that we need to ensure that we change the culture of spending in Washington. Clearly, tax cuts will not solve this problem, that will only make matters worse; but if the problem is spending, why would you want to send even more money up to Washington to let them spend even more? We've got to control spending; we've got to start making cuts today; but we ultimately need that accountability that comes with a balanced budget amendment.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, after yesterday's action here on the House floor, we have sent not one, but two real solutions to this debt and spending crisis over to the Senate. The Senate has yet to take action on anything. The President refuses to even submit a plan to solve this problem. All we hear from the President are these divisive class warfare speeches. A speech is not a solution to the problem, especially when you hear of all this foolishness about corporate jet owners and millionaires and billionaires. If the President got his way, if the President confiscated every dollar from corporate jet owners and millionaires and billionaires, he himself knows that wouldn't solve the problem. And yet what you have is a spending problem in Washington. You don't solve a spending problem by sending even more spending to Washington so that they can blow even more money. What we actually need to do is not a balanced approach, we need a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution, so that you can finally invoke accountability in Washington to solve the spending problem. Job-killing taxes, more tax increases that only gives Washington more money to spend. Instead of facing the problem, we have got to stop ignoring the problem. The President needs to get his head out of the sand and address the real spending crisis in Washington.