Steve Scalise

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. If you look at the Reid bill, it doesn't even start to address the problem. With all of its budget gimmicks and shell games, I think most people recognize that if you had an honest conversation, you would know it doesn't even start to tackle the spending problem. Now, hardworking American families back home know the problem in America is not that we have corporate jet owners and millionaires and billionaires; the problem is that Washington spends too much money. You don't solve that problem by sending more money up to Washington to spend even more. And so when the President talks about a balanced approach, what he really means is more job-killing tax hikes. Families back home know what we really need is a balanced budget amendment to put accountability back in place in Washington to control this rampant, out-of-control spending in Washington and to finally attack the real problem, and that's Washington spending. I oppose the bill.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for yielding. I rise in support of this jobs bill, the Keystone bill, that actually opens up another 700,000 barrels a day coming into the United States from Canada. First of all, this oil will be going to United States refineries in Texas to refine oil for Americans. On top of that, it will create another 20,000 American jobs. If you look at what that means, first of all, China wants to get that oil from Canada. So if we don't agree to this, if the President, for whatever reason--because radicals don't want that oil coming in. They don't like oil at all. So I guess they're going to ride around on bicycles, and that's going to get them where they need to be. We've got to live in reality. We've got a demand in this country for oil. It's either going to come from Middle Eastern countries, many of whom don't like us, or we can bring more of it in not only from America, where the United States has more reserves that they won't allow us to utilize, but here Canada is saying 700,000 barrels a day can come into America, where we can create those good jobs. What does that really mean? That means we don't have to buy 700,000 barrels a day from Middle Eastern countries. Let's talk about the trade gap. The biggest part of our trade gap is all the money that we send to these Middle Eastern countries and other countries because we don't produce enough of our own in America because of these radical policies. So you bring that 700,000 barrels a day from Canada, that's $25 billion a year that we're not sending to Middle Eastern countries who don't like us. If you want to talk about a trade gap, when we trade with Canada, think about this: When we trade with Canada, 90 cents on the dollar comes back to the United States of America. Canada is a great ally and a good friend of ours. It's a good trading relationship. We get 90 percent of that money back. When we trade with Middle Eastern countries, buying their oil, which we do right now, less than half of that money comes back to the United States. So if you want to talk about this from dollars and cents, from jobs, from national security, all of that adds up to passing this bill to build this relationship, build this pipeline with Canada, who says they want to partner with us. Now, if we turn them down, they'll go to China. But they want this relationship. They want to increase our energy security and create those jobs. I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. SCALISE

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

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, the amendment that I bring would take $420,000 from the Secretary of the Interior's account and move it into the spending reduction account to reduce the Nation's deficit. And the reason that we're doing this is that, over the last year since the Deepwater Horizon exploded, the administration came out with a policy not long after that imposed a moratorium on drilling, a moratorium that was found by Federal courts to be outside of the law. The administration unfortunately went forward with that moratorium, costing thousands of American jobs, hurting America's energy security. But even after the lifting of the moratorium, they still maintain what they call a permitorium, a refusal to issue permits to explore in the Gulf of Mexico for American energy. Not only does it cost our Nation tens of thousands of jobs, but it also costs us energy security where now we're even more dependent on Middle Eastern countries for oil. It's led to higher prices of gasoline at the pumps. It's had devastating impacts. Yet there's been no accountability to the administration for their policies that have led to this destruction of our economic well-being and our energy security as it relates to American energy, and especially as it relates to jobs in the Gulf of Mexico. Now, if you really want to get down to the details of this amendment, one of the things we've said for a long time is, a lot of these companies, these big employers that have been out there for a long time exploring safely for American energy, they want to continue to be able to explore for American energy; and they want to go back to work; but they haven't been allowed to because of administration policies. But what's more absurd is that while the administration has had this permitorium, where they won't let people go back to work, they have also allowed the clock to continue ticking on the permits and on the leases. And you've got a finite amount of time for a lease; you've got a 10-year period of time. And if the administration is saying you can't properly develop your lease--now it would be one thing if they said, we're going to stop the clock while we, as an administration, go forward with this radical policy. But all outside experts have said is that it has nothing to do with safety, and it is hurting not only American energy production but American jobs. But what the administration said is they're going to continue to let the clock run. It's like if you are playing a basketball game and the referee is holding the ball, and the clock's still running. You are sitting there saying, look, I just want the ball. I want to be able to go out and play by the rules, and the referee is holding the ball while the clock continues to run. That's just not fair. And yet the administration continues to do this. This House, Madam Chair, passed legislation, H.R. 1229. It's called the Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act. This legislation that we passed here in this House with a bipartisan vote, sent it over to the Senate--they still haven't taken action in the Senate--but what this legislation did, among other things, is it addressed that problem and said, If this administration is going to tell responsible companies who are trying to go back to work, who are trying to do the right thing--if the administration is going to tell them that they're not allowed to play by their own rules, then the clock stops while the administration denies them the ability to be permitted. So the legislation that we passed addressed this. But the Senate, for whatever reason, refuses to take that up; again, costing our country thousands of good, high-paying jobs and hurting America's energy security, making us more dependent on Middle Eastern oil. What we're saying with this amendment is: if this administration wants to continue going forward with that radical policy, which a majority of the President's own hand-picked scientists in his report right after the explosion of the Horizon said is irresponsible to do, that would actually reduce safety by denying permits, by having this moratorium, and now permitorium, then there has to be accountability. We have to hold this administration accountable for their actions. And the $420,000 number in this bill that we're setting aside and putting into the deficit reduction account was gathered by looking at the number of leases that expire at the end of this year. There are 350 leases that will expire at the end of this year, not through any fault of those companies that are out there trying to explore for American energy, but because the administration won't let them play by the rules. So if they're going to be irresponsible with their policies, there has to be a price to pay. There has to be accountability that the American people say, You're not going to use taxpayer money to deny American jobs, to deny American energy, and make our country more dependent on Middle Eastern oil and make our country continue to have to pay these higher prices at the pump. It's their policies that have done it, and it's clear, and everybody understands that. People in the Gulf of Mexico recognize that. But there has been no accountability by this Congress, and so that's what this legislation is intended to do. This amendment will address that problem. I urge its adoption. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment with the modification I have placed at the desk.

Mr. SCALISE. What the amendment, as it's now revised, would do is it would still reduce the $420,000. It wouldn't go to the Spending Reduction Account; it would stay within the department, and I think that addresses one of the concerns that the chairman had. But it would still make it clear that there's going to have to be accountability for those people who have played by the rules who are being penalized today. There's got to be some accountability and, in this case, there would be the ability for us to not only send a message but a message attached to a spending reduction in the Secretary's department, that he can't just deny people the ability to go back to work who are playing by the rules.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, over the last few months, we've heard a lot of speeches about fiscal responsibility. Today, here on the floor of the House of Representatives, we're going to give Members of Congress the opportunity to put their money where their mouth is. The cut, cap, and balance plan actually imposes real cuts to spending today. It puts caps on future growth, and it says that we're going to put an amendment in the Constitution that requires the Federal Government to do what States and families do, and that's actually balance the budget. Yet yesterday, the President comes out and says he would veto this plan. Well, of course, this is a President who said he wants commissions to balance the budget, who blames other people for the problems in Washington, who makes you think that the corporate jet owners are going to mysteriously balance the budget. This is a real proposal that actually gets us back to a balanced budget. The President, I think, has shown that he's not serious about addressing the problem of out-of-control spending. It's not that we're taxed too little in this country; it's that Washington spends too much. Cut, cap, and balance actually addresses the problem and puts fiscal sanity back in Washington where it's desperately needed.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, tonight the House finally passed a real plan that addresses this Nation's spending crisis. I think many American families out there already know that Washington has had a spending problem, because they have been living within their means for a long time. They have been sitting around the kitchen table figuring out how to make do with what they have got. And yet in Washington, it seems like liberal leadership over here wants to ignore the problem. We have passed a plan today in the House with Cut, Cap, and Balance that controls spending in Washington and puts us on a path to a balanced budget. And what's the President's plan? We have still yet to hear his plan. All we hear are speeches and class warfare where the President tries to pit one group of Americans against another, as if corporate jet owners and millionaires and billionaires can solve the problem. If he confiscated every single dollar they have, it wouldn't address the problem. Now it is time to get real. If the President wants to get serious about addressing the spending problems in this Nation, it is time for him to confront what Cut, Cap, and Balance really does, and that is to finally tell Washington it is time to start living within your means, just like families across this country have been doing for years.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I rise in support of Cut, Cap and Balance. If you look at what American families have been telling us for the last few years, during these tough economic times what they have been doing is they have been cutting back. They have been tightening their belts, and they sit around the kitchen table and figure out how to balance their budget and live within their means. Yet today on the other side, all you've seen is a parade of Members coming and criticizing the concept of a balanced budget, actually calling it extreme, radical. Imagine that. Only a big-spending Washington liberal could think it would be radical to require Washington to start living within its means like families have been doing for years. So, frankly, American families would say it's about time. Welcome to the party. And, instead, some people think you can just live in this fantasy land where you can just keep taxing, spending, borrowing money from China and act like the day of reckoning is never going to come and kick the can down to our children and our grandchildren and make it their problem. Well, it's time to say enough is enough. We're not going to pass this on to the next generation. We're going to deal with our problems today. We're going to set priorities today and do the tough things people sent us to do. And that means cutting, capping, and balancing the Federal budget.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you. I would like to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee.

Mr. SCALISE. I thank the distinguished chairman. As many of our colleagues know, it is critical in Louisiana and elsewhere throughout the Nation to restore as quickly as possible the flood control and navigation integrity of our inland waterway system. Again, I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, section 501(a) provides to the Corps of Engineers more than $1 billion in emergency supplemental funding for disaster relief. The section makes those funds available ``for emergency expenses for repair of damages caused by the storm and flood events of 2011.'' Am I correct in my understanding that included in the ``damages'' to be addressed by section 501(a) is the loss of navigation channel dimensions caused or exacerbated by this year's floods?

Mr. SCALISE

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 interest by both gentlemen in dealing with the backlog that the Corps currently has, and, in fact, that's one of the reasons why, when I worked closely with my colleague from New Orleans, Cedric Richmond, on this amendment, we first of all made sure not to take anything away from existing projects, so those existing projects in the pipeline are not affected at all by this amendment. And, in fact, the Corps's overall budget is not increased by our amendment, and we worked very hard to get to that point that we weren't taking away from other vital projects but pointing out that this is not a Louisiana-specific issue, this is a national issue. And as we talked about that pipeline, that series of pipelines that goes throughout the entire country to supply the energy needs of our Nation, and we talk about the vital seafood production and the things that make our gulf seafood so appetizing to people all around the country and around the world, but I also want to go back to this football and talk about the football field of land that erodes every hour. Just the last hour we have been sitting here, an entire football field of America's wetlands has eroded away, and we can reverse that trend without taking away from any other projects. I understand the importance of that and, like I said, that's why we worked so hard to put the amendment together in the way that we did. I would urge adoption from all of my colleagues. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I offer this bipartisan amendment with my fellow Louisiana colleague, Democratic Congressman Cedric Richmond. And what our amendment does is it transfers $1 million out of the Corps of Engineers' expense account and into the Corps' construction account for critical coastal restoration efforts. If you look at what we're dealing with here, what we're trying to address, not only can we maintain fiscal responsibility, but we need to also maintain and restore America's wetlands. And just what is happening to America's wetlands? What are we trying to address with this amendment? Louisiana alone has lost 25 square miles of coastal wetlands every year. And I want to hold up this football to represent that every single hour, Mr. Chairman, every single hour the State of Louisiana alone loses an entire football field of land, an entire football field of land that's eroded away. And what exactly does that wetland, America's wetland, protect that's eroding away? I want to show a chart here of the oil and gas infrastructure, the pipelines that move America's energy throughout the country. In the gulf coast alone, just in Louisiana, we produce about one-third of America's energy. And we talk all the time about our interest in reducing our country's dependence on foreign oil, and I strongly, strongly support that effort. In fact, Louisiana is at the forefront of doing that. But that energy that we produce, and we ought to be producing more of it, we have the opportunity to produce more, but the energy we do produce is distributed throughout the entire country through pipelines that are in jeopardy right now because of that erosion of our coast, this wetland in America. And not only is it the oil and gas infrastructure that's at risk, but also seafood production. The gulf coast of Louisiana, we produce a third of the country's seafood. And just looking at this chart makes me hungry when you look at the oysters, and the crabs, and the fish, this great product that we produce off our coast. But all of that comes from America's wetland, from that wetland that's evaporating, eroding away. And we're trying, we're bringing a bipartisan amendment to stop that from happening. Louisiana's put its own skin in the game to the tune of over a billion dollars, over a billion dollars of money that Louisiana's put in. But there was a project that was authorized by this Congress, because this is a national issue. And, in fact, Congress has recognized this is an issue that shouldn't just be left up to Louisiana, because we're talking about something that protects and serves the entire country. And that's why in 2007, the LCA project was authorized by Congress. And all we're trying to do is keep that project alive, moving a million dollars from the expense account over into the Corps' construction account. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, I first want to congratulate and thank the chairman of the Energy and Water subcommittee for setting as a priority making sure that our waterways, especially the Mississippi River, are restored after the devastating floods that we experienced throughout our country. It wasn't just in a few States; it was throughout many parts of the Midwest, South, and other parts of our country that experienced tornado damage and experienced unprecedented flooding going back to 1927. But now if you look at where we are and you look at what is being done here, this is not money that is adding to the deficit. We are at a point right now as we face this debt ceiling--and there is a divide in Congress; there is a divide in Washington. And the question is: Are we going to start living within our means and truly setting priorities in this country or just continue going down this spending binge acting as if nobody is going to pay the tab? And, of course, I think what the chairman, the full chairman of Appropriations and so many other members of this new majority have said is that game is over. The game of spending money we don't have is over, and we've got to make the tough choices of setting priorities in this country. So if you look at some of the money that was moved over from high- speed rail--and there were billions of dollars set aside in the stimulus bill that was such a failed disaster, over $787 billion of money that we don't have with the promise that unemployment wouldn't go over 8 percent. It's very clear that that failed. But what we're saying is let's take some of that money and move it over into something that's much more important right now, and that is getting our economy back on track, getting people back on track and getting their families back together. Look at what happened on the Mississippi River. Just a few weeks ago, I flew over the Morganza Spillway and looked at the Atchafalaya Basin where some of that flooding happened where you literally had people who were in harm's way and their areas were flooded to keep other people from flooding. And it was one of those terrible choices no one wants to have to make, but those families were put in that situation and their communities were flooded so other communities wouldn't. The extra silt that came down the Mississippi River now threatens to impede the ability for us to move commerce through 30-plus States of this country so that we can get those exports, so that we can create more jobs and be able to be competitive with foreign countries. If you're a farmer in Iowa, if you're trying to move commerce in Missouri down the Mississippi River, if you don't have the ability now because we're not able to dredge the river, all of a sudden now Brazil is going to get that contract for that product because you can't be competitive anymore. Not only are we talking about tens of thousands of jobs, but we're talking about priorities. If you look at the high-speed rail projects, many States have turned the money down. Why? Because they realize it's a money loser. They lose money on the deal because it just doesn't pay for itself. Of course, States have balanced budgets. Most of those States have to balance their budget every year, so they can't just take what looks like free money to go and engage in a process that's ultimately going to cost them money every year that they don't have. But because they have to balance their budget, many of them have turned that money away. And so you look here in Washington, there is no balanced budget requirement, and it shows you, frankly, one of the reasons why we need a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution so that we are forced to live within our means, too, so we can't just keep spending money as if there is no consequence, because there is consequence. Our children and our grandchildren are counting on us to make those responsible decisions and to set the priorities. We cannot just tell everybody that comes in the door, You've got an idea, here's some money; you've got an idea, here's some money. Nobody has the money. We'll just go print it, raise the debt ceiling and just keep giving it as if it's not going to have an effect. At some point, it has a real effect; it has a real impact. And so we've got to make the tough choices and set the priorities. So there was devastating flooding throughout our country. You had so many States that saw tornado damage and flooding damage, and they're trying to get back on their feet. And then there is this high-speed rail money. And so much of the money in the stimulus bill went to waste and was squandered. We have nothing to show for it. The promise of no more than 8 percent unemployment didn't work. It was a failure, and everybody recognizes it. And so we're saying we're going to make those tough choices. None of these choices are easy, but we didn't come up here to make easy choices. We came up here because we've got to set the priorities of this country, and that means balancing our budget and not just saying everything can get all the funding it wants. If something is a priority, then that means we've got to find the money somewhere else. And so that's what's being done here. And that's why I commend the chairman for making that tough decision. And, yes, we're going to have to have a fight over this. We're going to have to have a discussion over this, as we should. This is the people's House. That's what this discussion is about. It's about setting our priorities and shifting from the old way of doing business of just spending more money we don't have on every idea that sounded good. We can't keep doing that. So that's why I support what the chairman is doing. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chairwoman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. SCALISE

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

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

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan amendment, worked on with Mr. Richmond and others, and it deals with dredging. You know, we've seen over the last few months a shift in the Corps of Engineers' policy. In years past, they've always reprogrammed millions of dollars, in many cases tens of millions of dollars, from other areas within their agency because they inadequately had initially funded dredging of our waterways. And of course, this is the lifeblood to moving commerce throughout not only much of our country, but as we export to other countries throughout the world. For whatever reason, the Corps made an internal decision earlier this year that they would no longer do that reprogramming, which jeopardizes much of the movements that we have along our waterways. This amendment is revenue-neutral. It doesn't add anything to the cost of the bill. But what it does is it takes money out of the general administration account, which actually saw an increase this year, moves it over into the general operations and maintenance section of the bill so that it allows us at least additional revenues to go and properly dredge our waterways. Why is this important? Number one, it's a critical jobs issue. Because as we just saw a few weeks ago, prior to some of the record levels of flooding, Mr. Chairman, we saw they had to roll back, just in my region of the New Orleans area, they had to roll back some of the depth that they were allowed to transport on the Mississippi River. This cost about $1 million per vessel, added costs to move commerce throughout our country. Not only does that cost jobs, but it also increases the cost of goods for Americans who buy those products. But it also increases the costs of exporting. And it makes our American companies less competitive in the world. And of course right now this Congress, the President, we're working together to try to reach trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. And I support more trade, free trade, the ability for more American employers to be able to sell their goods throughout the world, to actually create more jobs in America. But if we're going to do that, we've got to have the proper dredging going on to allow for that commerce along our waterways. So if the Corps is allowed to go through with their policy of no more reprogramming, we know from what they've said, we know from what history's shown us that in years past they didn't have adequate amounts in their operations and maintenance for dredging, and so they have reprogrammed. Every year for years now that's been going on. And they've said this year they're no longer going to do it. So we would be sitting in a situation where we have to wait until some of our waterways are shut down or until you saw vessels grounded, like we just saw a few weeks ago just in the New Orleans area because of their lack of dredging. And then we would lose more jobs, we would lose our ability to export more. So what we are saying is, there is additional money in this fund, in the general administration fund. We know this is a looming problem if we don't address it. So let's move it somewhere where it will actually help us create jobs and remain competitive. And hopefully as those trade agreements move through Congress, where we now have more opportunities if those trade agreements move through to trade even more and to create more jobs in America, then our ability to move those goods through our waterways would still be there. Because they won't if we are not properly dredging our waterways. So this amendment addresses that problem. And it's a problem we know is coming because the Corps themselves have said this is looming. So let's address it head on. Let's not wait until it's a crisis before we do something about it. That's why I bring the amendment, again an amendment with bipartisan support. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President made a decision to raid 30 million barrels out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Now, of course one thing the President did yesterday in that decision was he acknowledged that supply has an impact on price, which is a reversal of his previous statement. The problem is rather than actually opening up known reserves of American oil where we can go and create tens of thousands of American jobs and get rid of some of this dependency on some of these Middle Eastern countries, what the President said instead was he's just going to go and raid America's, in essence, our safety net. This Strategic Petroleum Reserve is there for national emergencies. It's not there just because maybe the President feels it would be politically popular for a couple of days to do something. This doesn't even get us past 2 days' worth of America's supply. We have known reserves that this President is shutting off all across this country. And we can actually reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil if we go out and create those jobs, create that American energy, rather than raiding our savings account for oil. And so the President's decision was a failed policy that doubles down on his previous failed policy on energy that has gotten us to skyrocketing gas prices. And of course we're going to be back here again in just a couple of days when this short-term fix runs out. Instead, we should put a real energy policy in place that reduces our dependence on foreign oil.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011. If you want to talk about a jobs bill, you want to talk about a bill that will actually allow us to decrease our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, this is it. Now, some of my colleagues on the other side say, oh, it's going to take 10 years to get that oil. The reason it's going to take 10 years is because for the last 4 years they've been trying to get their permit to go and drill where there's known oil, known reserves and the EPA's been combining with these radical environmentalist groups to block them. And so what they're saying is, those people don't want the energy in America. They want to go to places like Brazil, they want to go to Egypt, they want to go to some of these other Middle Eastern countries, many of whom don't like us, and get the oil there. But when we find known reserves in America, they are using our own Federal regulators to block American energy. So what we're saying is, let's pass the piece of legislation that's here on the floor now that's going to allow us to utilize our own American energy. This one find alone up in Beaufort and Chukchi Sea in Alaska, this one known reserve right here that we have the ability to put online is going to bring in a million barrels of oil a day. That's American energy. That's not oil that's going to be imported on tankers where 70 percent of your spills occur from Middle Eastern countries, where the billions of dollars we're sending them are going to countries who don't like us. That's American jobs, over 50,000 jobs that can be created by getting these bureaucratic hurdles out of the way. They've got to follow all the rules. They've got to play by the rules, but you can't keep using these bureaucratic agencies combining up with radical environmentalist groups who don't want any American energy to be used to block production of American energy. That's what this bill does. It creates American jobs. It allows us to say, okay, a million barrels a day we no longer have to import from Middle Eastern countries. So anybody that pays lip service and says they want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, if they oppose this bill, then they're supporting foreign oil because this bill says a million less barrels of oil we have to bring in from these other countries because we have got it in America. We want to bring in our own oil. We want to create American jobs, and we want to lower the price of gasoline at the pump. This is how you do it. This is how you put more oil through that Alaskan pipeline, which is getting ready to dry up because they won't let them explore for energy in America. Let's explore for energy and create jobs.