Steve Scalise

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. SCALISE. I would like to yield 3 minutes to a cosponsor of this bill, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCALISE. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I want to thank my friend from Pennsylvania for yielding me time, Mr. Speaker. As we're talking about the Bureau of Labor Statistics, it's an interesting period in our country's history because, just in the last few months since President Obama's taken office, our country has lost 2 million more jobs; 2 million more Americans are out of work, are part of those statistics. I think it's much more than statistics. It's policies by this administration that have caused those 2 million Americans to lose their jobs since January. If you go back to the stimulus bill, that was the bill that was touted at stopping the bleeding. All of us on this side that opposed that bill, that opposed spending $800 billion of money that we don't have, said back then that that bill would actually make matters worse because it was adding mountains of debt to our children and grandchildren, but also it wasn't addressing the problems in our economy. In fact, now we're seeing unemployment at 9.5 percent, approaching 10 percent, with 2 million more Americans having lost their jobs since President Obama took office. And what's this administration saying? Are they finally admitting that the stimulus was a failure? No. In fact, some in the White House are calling for another stimulus bill, more spending. In fact, just last week at a convention of the AARP, Vice President Joe Biden said, ``We have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt.'' Those are words the Vice President actually said just last week. And so as this mountain of debt is piling up on the backs of our children and grandchildren, as the President is running car companies and running banks and running all of these other institutions--with over 30 czars, and it's not working--their own Vice President is saying they need to spend money to keep from going bankrupt. These are ludicrous policies. We have got to go back to common sense. We've got to go back to fiscal discipline and start balancing our budget like every other State is dealing with their budgets, like American families are dealing with these tough economic times as they're pulling back and living within their own means. It's the Federal Government here in Washington that seems to be out of control on a spending frenzy. Then, just a few weeks ago, they brought this cap-and-trade national energy tax, where they're literally proposing a policy that would run millions more American jobs out of this country to places like China and India, where they'll actually emit more carbon than we do here in America to do the same thing, while rising utility rates on every American family. The President's own budget director said that the cap-and-trade energy tax would add another $1,200 a year to every American family's utility bills. So, as they're thinking about turning on their air conditioner in the summer, they're going to be thinking about whether or not they will pay these higher electricity rates. These policies are helping lead to this rapid unemployment that is now approaching double digits. And the latest here we have in front of us in Congress is this debate over the President and Speaker Pelosi and others' proposal to have a government takeover of our health care system, where the estimates are that we would have hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes, over $580 billion in new taxes on the backs of small businesses. You would have $240 billion in fines in their approach on the backs of American families, including--get this. This is according to the Congressional Budget Office. In the President's takeover, proposal to take over the health care system by the government, they have $29 million in penalties against people who are uninsured. It's in the bill. They have the ability for this health care czar--a health care czar that would literally be able to tell Americans whether or not they can see a doctor and which doctor they can see. It actually gives the authority to this bureaucrat in Washington to disqualify a company's entire health benefits plan. So if you like the health care you have, the health care czar in their bill allows the health care czar to take your health care benefits away.

Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania. If you look at these policies--and the American people out there across the country are looking at these policies, and that's a good thing because as they look at these policies, and they hear the leadership here in Washington, the people running Congress, saying they need to ram these policies through before the next 2 weeks are over, I think people are figuring it out. They're saying, Wait a minute. Many Members who actually voted for that cap-and-trade energy tax didn't even read the bill because they dropped 300 pages of amendments down the day of the vote. And we know they're going to try to do the same thing again on this government takeover of health care, and people are sick and tired of it. People are finally saying, Enough is enough; control spending and these czars; stop running car companies; stop running banks; and, surely, don't try to have some government bureaucrat take over our health care system. So hopefully we won't add millions more Americans to these statistics that we're talking about today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, today in the Energy and Commerce Committee we started having hearings on President Obama and Speaker Pelosi's bill, the proposal to create a government takeover of our health care system. I think the components of this bill and some of the things that have been talked about need to be discussed here on this House floor because the bill itself will actually lead to rationing of health care for Americans across this country. The bill will absolutely raise taxes on every American in this country and every small business in this country. In fact, there are over $580 billion in new taxes in this bill. This bill was just filed earlier this week. The Congressional Budget Office hasn't even been able to do a full assessment of it. There was a meeting held yesterday in the Energy and Commerce Committee with the CBO. Unfortunately the chairman decided that that meeting would be held in secret. He did not allow the media to come in. He didn't allow the public to have access through the Internet or through television to see what the head of the CBO had to say. You know, maybe if somebody supports this government takeover, I can see why they might want to try to hide the details from the public because the details that start to come out are showing the true cost to the American people and the true dangers of going into this government takeover of our health care system. I think the people ought to know what those details are. I think when you're talking about a bill this massive, a bill that is so enormous, probably one of the biggest transformations of government--and in an administration that has had many, many attempts to try to take over different aspects of our lives, this may be the biggest one. We have a chart right here that we've put together which actually shows the organizational structure of this new government takeover. If government is allowed to take over the health care system based on the bill that President Obama and the Speaker and her top lieutenants in this House and in the Senate have filed, this is the structure of what government-run health care would look like. There are a number of points that I think are important to go through. You hear President Obama talking a lot about, if you have the health care you like, you get to keep it. Now that sounds great. I agree with that. The problem is, the bill that President Obama and Speaker Pelosi and others filed takes away your health care. It allows a government czar--and unfortunately they've created so many czars. The government is running the insurance companies. The government is running banks right now. The government is running car companies. And the government is not doing a real good job of it. And now the government wants to run the health care system in this country. If you look at this organizational chart, you will see a whole lot of Federal agencies interfering in the relationship between a patient and their doctor. Now these are the people that are saying that the government won't tell you when you can go see your doctor. Everywhere in this organizational chart and everywhere in their thousand-plus page bill they're giving this new health care czar the ability and the power to interfere between the relationship of a patient and their doctor. If you like the health care plan you have, there's actual language in this bill that allows this health care czar that's created, it gives this government bureaucrat in Washington the power to tell your company, if you like your health care, the government can now take away, literally disqualify your company's health care plan from being eligible and force you onto this government-run plan. They have taxes that cover all different aspects of life. They tax businesses, $583 billion in taxes on working people in this country. There's actually--and this was verified yesterday by the Congressional Budget Office--$29 billion in new taxes on uninsured people. Now the real irony of that is, the real reason that they're bringing this bill--over 300 million Americans participate in health care today, and there is a number of uninsured people. Some people say the number is 45 million. Others have narrowed it down, when you remove the illegal aliens, when you remove people that just choose not to get health care who are eligible, the real number of uninsured people has been honed down to about 7 million people, and that's a number we should go address. Health care needs to be reformed, and there are a lot of bipartisan approaches to reform that system. But you reform something that's broke. You don't blow up the whole system that's working. In America we've got probably the best medical care in the world. People who have government-run systems, like Canada, like England, the citizens that have the means actually come to America to get care because our system is so good, even with the flaws. So let's go address those flaws. But you don't set up a system like this, some Byzantine system of bureaucrats and czars that are going to tell you which doctor you can see, to take over our health care system. Unfortunately we have got a debate started; and hopefully the public gets involved in this because when you look at the taxes, literally $29 billion of taxes on uninsured people when the bill was supposed to be designed to address the uninsured. When you look at small businesses and the impact on small businesses and middle-class families, in the bill they literally allow taxes on people making less than $50,000. This is a bill that needs important debate. Hopefully people will look at the details, and we can defeat it.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on Congressionally-directed project funding, I am submitting the following information regarding project funding I requested for Southeast Louisiana as part of the Fiscal Year 2010 Energy and Water Appropriations Act. Requesting Member: Congressman Steve Scalise Bill Number: Fiscal Year 2010 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill Account: Corps of Engineers, Section 107 Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Port of New Orleans Address of Requesting Entity: 1350 Port of New Orleans Place, New Orleans, LA 70130 Description of Request: I have secured $100,000 for the Port of New Orleans. This will be a good use of taxpayer dollars because the authorized dredging and maintenance project would provide a minimum 45- foot draft access at the Napoleon Avenue Container Terminal in the Port of New Orleans to enable terminal use by deep draft ships and to allow the Port to remain competitive in attracting and retaining international business. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on Congressionally-directed project funding, I am submitting the following information regarding project funding I requested for Southeast Louisiana as part of the Fiscal Year 2010 Financial Services Appropriations Act. Requesting Member: Congressman Steve Scalise Bill Number: Fiscal Year 2010 Financial Services Appropriations Bill Account: Small Business Administration, Salaries and Expenses Name of Requesting Entity: West Jefferson Medical Center Address of Requesting Entity: 1101 Medical Center Boulevard, Marrero, LA 70072 Description of Request: I have secured $100,000 for the West Jefferson Medical Center. This funding will be used for training of Certified Nurse Assistants and Phlebotomists. There is an opportunity to increase technical competencies while responding positively to patient needs. The enhanced skills provided by the training will lead to improved quality of care, improved patient satisfaction, reduced employee turnover, and enhanced employee effectiveness and productivity. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding, Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to this rule because 80 percent of the amendments that were brought forward on this bill were not allowed under this rule. And so clearly we are not operating under a transparent process. We are not operating under a process that is allowing the free debate that I think all Americans want us to have on appropriations bills that spend their money. First, there were some amendments that were brought forward that would have actually directed the Corps of Engineers to base their flood protection decisions on the most safe options to protect our citizens and their property from future storms. That amendment was not allowed under this rule. There was actually an amendment to cut, and I know it is a word that some people don't like over in this building, to cut spending by $7 billion based on the amount of money that was added in the stimulus bill. I think many of us, on this side for sure, and I would hope some of my colleagues on the other side, would even acknowledge that the President's stimulus bill was a failed spending bill, $800 billion of new government spending at a time when our economy is hurting. And now even the Vice President acknowledges they misread the economy. Everybody I think that has looked at it objectively acknowledges the spending bill was a bad idea. Those of us who voted against it said it would be a bad idea and hurt the economy then. That is why we proposed an alternative. Yet this steamroller to just continue spending money out of control went on, and they passed the bill. There was an amendment that was proposed that would have cut that $7 billion in this Department that went through the stimulus bill that clearly isn't working. Instead of controlling the spending and allowing a vote on that, that was ruled out of order under this rule. All of us that have looked and said, where are the jobs from the spending bill, that stimulus bill, no one can point to the jobs, because we have lost jobs. Since President Obama took office, 2 million more Americans have lost their job. And what is their answer? You would think their answer would be, Maybe some of those Republicans that had some alternative ideas might have been right; we will actually work in a bipartisan way and go talk to them and see what their ideas were because they were good ideas that would have helped small businesses and helped American families get back on their feet. Instead, these ideas were discarded. Maybe they would go back and look at those ideas again. Instead, some people in the White House are actually suggesting a second stimulus bill, yet another massive spending bill at a time when the spending is what is hurting our economy. And so we bring an amendment to cut spending, and they rule it out of order in this rule. Maybe Speaker Pelosi and some of her liberal lieutenants think that the American people aren't watching, and maybe they are high-fiving because they are hoodwinking people into not knowing what is going on here in this House. But I hate to tell them, the American people are watching, and they don't like what they see. They see massive runaway spending. They see more jobs being lost. They see this energy bill, this cap-and-trade energy tax that would run millions of jobs to countries like China, causing more Americans to be unemployed and raising utility rates on every American family. The American people are watching this. And they are demanding action from Congress. That is why we are bringing these amendments to cut the spending.

Mr. SCALISE. I want to thank my friend from Florida again. That is why we are bringing these amendments. We are bringing constructive ideas to solve the problems of our country and to propose different approaches, not massive spending, but actually ways to get Americans back employed, ways to help small businesses survive during these tough times, ways to help middle class families who are struggling to get back on their feet. And every time we bring these proposals, the liberal leadership on the other side says, no, we don't want to hear those alternative ideas; we want to just keep spending money like there is no end in sight. Well, there is an end in sight. And if you look just earlier this week, we reached a hurdle that I don't think is a good hurdle, I don't think anyone should be proud of, but it is a historic hurdle. Earlier this week, our country exceeded $1 trillion in deficits during the course of a fiscal year. It was already exceeded this week, and we still have months to go in the fiscal year. So this is going to have a devastating effect on our economy, this massive runaway spending. And yet they bring a rule that closes debate on 80 percent of amendments. I would urge rejection of this rule.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. He said he wouldn't do anything differently and the stimulus bill was working according to plan.

Mr. SCALISE. Clearly he must have been because he and his own Vice President not only are saying that that bill, the stimulus bill, is working according to plan but they're saying on the other end, some people in the White House are saying they're so concerned now about the economy and the approaching 10 percent unemployment that they're talking about doing a second stimulus. So people who are admitting on one hand they misread the economy, everyone's acknowledged that their stimulus plan isn't working and is spending money we don't have. Then they're talking about doing another stimulus bill to spend even more money we don't have.

Mr. SCALISE. It has got a heavy carbon footprint.

Mr. SCALISE. I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding. I appreciate the comments from my friend from Arizona and his alternative bill. I serve on the Energy and Commerce Committee as well. We're going to have a heated debate, a very necessary and important debate. But this should be a debate that allows all of these different ideas and facts to come out. But there is an old adage that says if you don't learn from the mistakes of history, you are doomed to repeat it. So I think if you go back to January and review the last 6 months and you look at the mistakes that have been made along the way and transpose that to the bill that was filed today, this government takeover of our health care system, you'll see a lot of similarities to the previous mistakes that's been made up until this point. When the President came in in January, his first initiative was this massive so-called stimulus bill: $787 billion in spending, borrowed money that we don't have, money that's going to be borrowed against our future, China and other countries that will be loaning us this money. This bill was touted as a way to save the economy. The President said we need to do this or else unemployment will reach 8 percent. Today as we stand here and review that bill, as my friend from Georgia said, where are the jobs? We know it hasn't created jobs. In fact, since President Obama took office, two million more Americans have lost their jobs. In the meantime, the stimulus bill is starting to have effects on the economy, but now you are beginning to see the beginnings of inflation because of all of this borrowing. You are also seeing the fact that this bill is clearly not working-- not only all of us who voted against the bill and proposed an alternative, and the President who vowed to be so bipartisan would not work with any Republicans to take some of the ideas that we had, ideas to actually empower Americans, to allow small businesses to hire people, to give tax relief to small businesses and families that are struggling out there. The President didn't want to approach any of those ideas. He just wanted this one-size-fits-all government-run program, spend more money, $800 billion. And now just last week his own Vice President said this plan, they misread the economy. And the President himself is going around saying-- first he's saying that he wouldn't do anything differently on the stimulus bill and he said the stimulus bill is working according to plan. Now, I'm not sure what plan he had, but two million more people out of work from the day he took office, unemployment approaching 10 percent, and he said that's the plan that's working.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the deficit for this year exceeded $1 trillion, just in this year. In fact, since President Obama has taken office, more than 2 million Americans have lost their jobs. And now with that backdrop, what is this administration talking about? First of all, the President is going around saying, The stimulus bill has done its job and is working exactly as we anticipated. Did they anticipate a bill that would cost $800 billion in money we don't have and now 2 million more Americans losing their jobs? It is time we get this right. While the White House is talking about even another stimulus bill, the American people are saying enough is enough. Stop the spending, the borrowing and the taxing and let's get Americans back to work. Let's actually provide that relief to small businesses and average American families that we, on the Republican side, proposed and President Obama didn't even want to look at. It's time to bring bipartisanship and real solutions to this problem that is facing our country instead of that tired old adage of spending and spending and borrowing and now taxing with this cap-and-trade and this health care government takeover. We have got to get back on track.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Well, I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri and all of my colleagues who have been talking tonight. As we start to see the plan unveiled and, literally, some of the secrecy removed on this plan, I think what most American people are going to see over the next few weeks is the fact that this is nothing short of a government takeover of our health care system, a system that right now provides some of the best medical care in the world because some of those people come from those countries--from those very countries that do have government-run health care and the rationing that exists in those countries--to this country, if they have the means, because we have the best medical care even though it's a system with flaws and even though it's a system that needs some reforms. Though, the reforms that need to be made need to be made while working with all of us, with all of us here--with the doctors who have been presenting these ideas and these good solutions that have been presented--not by a government takeover that literally would ration care for American families and that would add hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes on the backs of small business owners and families across this country. That's what their bill does. That's why we've got a big difference between how we here, who have been talking tonight, would approach this solution versus this government-run takeover of our health care system. I yield back.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. I stand here to strongly oppose this cap-and-trade national energy tax that is being proposed to be created here today. One of the things we have heard is about jobs. Let's talk about jobs. The National Association of Manufacturers estimates the United States will lose 3 to 4 million jobs if this bill becomes law. The President's own budget director has said American families will see a $1,200 increase per year on their electricity bill if this bill becomes law. That is the policy that they are trying to pass. That is the policy we are standing up and opposing today. Let's talk about job loss. If you look at the bill, they have 55 pages in this bill dedicated to job losses. Now why would they put 55 pages in the bill dedicated to job losses if they didn't think this was going to lose jobs and run those jobs over to China and India? And the real irony is for those who think that we need to reduce carbon emissions, this bill will actually increase carbon emissions because when that steel mill moves from the United States to Brazil, four times more carbon is emitted to produce steel in Brazil than in the United States. And not only do we lose jobs, they emit more carbon. This is a horrible way to wreck the American economy. We need to defeat it.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in opposition to this rule. This is a massive energy tax on the backs of the American people all across this country. All estimates show millions of jobs will be lost by this cap-and-trade energy tax. Every household family will see an increase in their utility bills. And we brought amendments last night to protect American jobs. They ruled every one of those amendments out of order. We brought amendments to protect American families having their utility bills increased. They ruled every one of those amendments out of order. What is Speaker Pelosi and this liberal leadership trying to hide from the American people? We should have an open, honest debate on this bill. It's a bad bill and a bad rule. I urge rejection of the rule.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on Congressionally-directed project funding, I am submitting the following information regarding project funding I requested for Southeast Louisiana as part of the Fiscal Year 2010 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Requesting Member: Congressman Steve Scalise Bill Number: Fiscal Year 2010 Interior and Environment Appropriations Bill Account: Environmental Protection Agency--STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Legal Name of Requesting Entity: St. Tammany Parish Address of Requesting Entity: St. Tammany Parish, 21490 Koop Drive, Mandeville, LA 70471 Description of Request: I have secured $500,000 for St. Tammany Parish. This funding will be used to create an on-line retention pond at the western intersection of Bayou Chinchuba and U.S. Highway 59. This will reduce floodwater heights in order to reduce risk to homes, streets, highway flooding, and protect over 16,000 citizens in the Bayou Chinchuba area of St. Tammany Parish. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on Congressionally-directed project funding, I am submitting the following information regarding project funding I requested for Southeast Louisiana as part of the Fiscal Year 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations Act. Requesting Member: Congressman Steve Scalise Bill Number: Fiscal Year 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill Account: Federal Emergency Management Agency, State and Local Programs Legal Name of Requesting Entity: New Orleans Emergency Medical Services Address of Requesting Entity: 1300 Perdido Street, Suite 4W07, New Orleans, LA 70112 Description of Request: I have secured $750,000 for the New Orleans Emergency Medical Services. The funding would be used to provide a permanent Emergency Operations Center and base of operation for the sole 9-1-1 emergency medical service provider for the city of New Orleans. Secure medication, equipment storage, and training areas are needed to better serve the citizens of New Orleans. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. Requesting Member: Congressman Steve Scalise Bill Number: Fiscal Year 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill Account: Federal Emergency Management Agency, State and Local Programs Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Washington Parish Government Address of Requesting Entity: 909 Pearl Street, Franklinton, LA 70438 Description of Request: I have secured $350,000 for the Washington Parish Government. The funding would be used to provide for an Emergency Operations/9-1-1 Multi-Agency Communications Center to coordinate electronic, telephone, satellite and radio communications between law enforcement, fire, EMS, hospitals, and Emergency Management Agencies. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I thank my colleague from Alabama for yielding me time to speak. I rise in opposition to this legislative appropriations bill. While I appreciate the work that's been done in putting this bill together, I think it's been a disservice to the American people that the amendments that were filed by so many Members on our side to actually cut the growth of spending in this bill were not allowed to come to the floor, were, in essence, ruled out of order. I think it's a sad day when someone attempts to cut spending in a bill that grows government by the size of 7 percent, in this case, and it is ruled out of order. It's not allowed to be debated on this House floor. I think what's happening right now--and we saw this yesterday--there was a $64 billion piece of legislation that was brought before Congress yesterday, which represented a 12 percent growth--the CJS budget that was brought before Congress yesterday--a 12 percent growth in government at a time when Americans all across the country are cutting their spending because we're living in tough economic times. I think there's some people in this leadership in Congress that just don't get the fact that people want us to cut spending here in Washington, not spend at record levels. I think it was very sad when just on this House floor yesterday we had a record--8 hours was spent on a bill where $64 billion of taxpayer money was being spent, and we were trying to bring up amendments to cut that rapid growth in spending. People just last night and today in the leadership on this floor actually used the comments that ``delaying tactics''--they called our amendments to cut spending delaying tactics. Some of their Members actually used the term ``nonsense'' and ``foolishness'' when describing our amendments to cut spending. So now some people on the other side want to spend money so fast that if we put up an amendment to cut spending, to cut growth in spending, they call that a delaying tactic. Well, I think Americans all across this country want more of those types of delaying tactics to slow down this runaway train of massive Federal spending, money we don't have. Every dollar we spend in Congress from today all the way through the end of this year is borrowed money. We don't have that money. We need to control what we're spending. I would urge opposition to this bill.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on Congressionally-directed project funding, I am submitting the following information regarding project funding I requested for Southeast Louisiana as part of the Fiscal Year 2010 Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Bill. Requesting Member: Congressman Steve Scalise Bill Number: Fiscal Year 2010 Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations Bill Account: Department of Justice, COPS Law Enforcement Technology Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Washington Parish Sherriff's Office Address of Requesting Entity: 1002 Main Street, Franklinton, Louisiana 70438 Description of Request: I have secured $291,000 for the Washington Parish Sheriff's Office. The funding will provide law enforcement equipment, and provide proactive and reactive law enforcement activities for the safety of citizens and law enforcement officials engaged in law enforcement activities. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. Requesting Member: Congressman Steve Scalise Bill Number: Fiscal Year 2010 Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations Bill Account: Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs--Juvenile Justice Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Boys Town Louisiana Address of Requesting Entity: 700 Frenchman Street, New Orleans, LA 70116 Description of Request: I have secured $147,000 for Boys Town Louisiana, New Orleans, LA. The funding would be to expand an integration of the Boys Town Treatment Family Home program and its Home Family Services program to serve more at-risk girls and boys and their families. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chair, last night, the House of Representatives passed the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. Unfortunately, this bill opens a door that will jeopardize one of the fundamental principles that our country was founded upon: the right to life. I am disturbed that the liberals in Congress want to allow taxpayer dollars to be spent on the promotion of abortion in foreign countries through the creation of the ``Office of Global Women's Issues.'' Secretary Clinton has acknowledged that this office will be used as a means to promote reproductive rights of women. She also testified before Congress that she believes that reproductive rights include abortion. I find it troubling that Secretary Clinton is forcing a pro abortion agenda on foreign nations, including countries with pro life laws. This pro abortion agenda by the State Department contradicts President Obama's statements that he wants to work toward reducing the number of abortions that are performed. I applaud Congressman Chris Smith for offering an amendment that would have explicitly prohibited this Office from participating in abortion activity. His amendment would have also promoted maternal health, women's empowerment, and educational opportunities for women. While I supported his amendment, unfortunately it was rejected. If we establish this office, we should set guidelines that promote a culture of life, not a culture of abortion. Secretary Clinton clearly expressed that she intends to promote and provide abortion through the Office of Global Women's Issues when she said: ``We happen to think that family planning is an important part of women's health and reproductive health includes access to abortion . . .'' and also that ``we are now an administration that will protect the rights of women, including their rights to reproductive health care.'' Unborn lives are the most defenseless lives, and it is our job to stand up and protect them. Under no circumstances should Americans be forced to fund abortions, either domestically or abroad.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's offer to yield time on this bill as this bill discusses the need to create healthy lifestyles for children. I think that something we should also be discussing here is the need to create economic opportunities for children, to make sure that our children not only are having a lifestyle that's healthy in school, teaching physical fitness, but also making sure that we are dealing with policies up here in Washington that allow them to have real opportunities when they get out of school. There is one bill that is moving through this body right now, the cap-and-trade energy tax, that would severely jeopardize our children's opportunities to have a better life, to have the opportunities that we had in our life. And so as we are talking about legislation right now to create healthy lifestyles, I think we should also be looking at the policies that come out of this body that could actually create big impediments, impediments that would deny them opportunities when they graduate from school. Let's talk about that cap-and-trade energy tax that is moving through. We just got a new, updated report by the Congressional Budget Office. The cap-and-trade energy tax that has been proposed imposes $846 billion in new taxes, taxes on energy that would affect every American, denying people the ability to buy healthy food for their children because they would be spending, according to the President's own budget director, $1,300 a year more in higher utility prices, not to mention how much more money they would be spending in higher gas prices at the pump, creating a greater dependence on Middle Eastern oil at a time when we need to be creating a national energy policy that is comprehensive, that uses our natural resources to create good jobs here in America, to fund and bridge us into those alternative sources of energy, like wind, like solar, like nuclear power, so that we can truly reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil and give those young children an opportunity to have good jobs here in America, using American natural resources to propel them. We have got an alternative bill called the American Energy Innovation Act, a bill that takes an all-of-the-above approach, that actually utilizes American natural resources, our oil, our natural gas. There are estimates that we have got almost 100 years of natural gas reserves here in this country. In fact, in Louisiana, the largest natural gas find in the history of our country occurred just 3 years ago. I know one of my colleagues will be talking about that. But we have got the ability here in our country to secure our energy independence. We've got legislation we have filed that would help us secure that energy independence, and they won't allow us a hearing on this bill because they are promoting this cap-and-trade energy tax, a tax on energy. Again, as we're talking about our young children, encouraging them to lead healthy lifestyles, we need to also be creating policies here that give them those opportunities so that they don't get out of school and have to go straight to the unemployment line. Their bill, this cap-and-trade energy tax, and I have got a copy of it right here. There are 55 pages, 55 pages in their bill dedicated to job losses, to American jobs that will be lost due to a cap-and-trade energy tax. In fact, the National Association of Manufacturers has estimated the cap-and-trade energy tax would run 3 to 4 million jobs out of America to countries like China and India, who are just chomping at the bit to take our jobs. So you would wonder why at a time when we are here discussing legislation to encourage our children to lead healthy lifestyles, as we should, there's also legislation moving through this Congress, pushed by the leadership in this Congress, that's trying to tax energy and run millions of jobs overseas to countries like China and India at a time when we are seeing record-level unemployment, over 9 percent. We broke the mark of 9 percent just in this last report, 9 percent unemployment in this country, at a time when so many people are cutting back because times are tough. And the answer that the leadership in Congress has is to promote a tax on energy, an $840 billion tax on energy that would run millions of jobs overseas. The real irony, when they talk about the goal of reducing carbon emissions, the real irony is the countries that will be getting our jobs, China, to produce the same steel that's produced here in America today, will actually emit more carbon to produce the same steel because they don't have the current environmental regulations that we have here in America. So the real irony is that they would be running jobs overseas to countries that will actually emit more carbon. Spain just did a study on cap-and-trade because they experimented with it for years. Spain, after finally realizing it was a bad idea, looked back and noticed that for every new job they created in a ``green'' industry, they lost 2.2 regular jobs, and of those new jobs they created, 9 out of 10 of them were temporary jobs. So, in essence, they lost 20 jobs for every full-time job they created. So we need to promote good policies, but we need to defeat this cap- and-trade energy tax.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I want to thank my colleague from California for yielding the time. Madam Chairman, some of the greatest joys in my life were the two births of my daughter and son. Two years ago, my daughter, Madison, I was able to be there for the birth with my wife, one of the great joys of my life. And then just 4 weeks ago tomorrow, the birth of my baby boy, Harrison, and I was there as well. Just wonderful, wonderful times that every family should spend together. Those opportunities already exist today in law. There is nothing in this bill that either takes away or gives the ability of parents to do that. They already have that right today, as they all should. Why I rise in objection to this bill is it adds an extra $938 million in new entitlements, in new debt, money that we don't have in this country, to an already growing deficit. We're at a $1.9 trillion deficit this year alone. Projections are that in the next 5 years, this administration will double the national debt. And at what time do we stop and look out for those children? My son that was born 4 weeks ago, when do we look out for his future, his opportunity, so that he doesn't have to inherit another billion dollars in debt that this bill will give him? I think it's very ironic in the same week that General Motors became ``Government Motors'' because of primarily health benefits, benefits that were added on and added on for employees to the point where the benefits of the employees bankrupted the company. And so what's Congress' answer to that? Congress' answer in the same week is to add more benefits at a time when people are losing their jobs, money that we don't have, almost a billion dollars. There used to be a saying ``a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money.'' I think the public has spoken out. They said, Enough is enough. We've got to control spending and look out for our future generations.