Steve Scalise

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1253, the Health Insurance Restrictions and Limitations Clarification Act of 2009. This bill will allow purchasers of health insurance to better understand what they are buying. At its core, this bill is about transparency for the consumer. And that is a good thing. This bill does not in any way alter current insurance requirements or limitations. This bill merely says that if an insurer wants to restrict or limit benefits, it must inform their enrollee prior to enrollment that it may so restrict or limit benefits. I wish to commend Congressmen Burgess and Stupak for their work on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to Mr. Burgess of Texas.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in proud support of H. Con. Res. 60, sponsored by Representative Granger from the State of Texas. March is National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month, and we need to do more and move in a direction that ends societal taboos that are associated with the screening process of a disease that is a threat to many Americans, and especially to those over the age of 50. This is the second-to-last day for the month of March, but the need for colorectal cancer awareness and education should continue throughout the entire year. Awareness is a leading cause in the annual decline in deaths from colorectal cancer. The survival rate of individuals who have colorectal cancer is 90 percent when detected in the early stages versus only a 10 percent survival rate when colorectal cancer is diagnosed after it has spread to other organs. It is because of successful programs such as National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month that encourage early diagnosis so Americans can lead full and active lives. By supporting the observance of March as Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month, we have the opportunity to encourage men and women to educate themselves about the disease and the screening methods that are used. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to recognize Ms. Granger of Texas for as much time as she may consume.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 577, the Vision Care for Kids Act. This bipartisan legislation provides eye examinations and follow-up care for children who have been identified as needing vision care services. This legislation builds on State programs currently in place with a focus on helping low-income children. Undiagnosed and untreated vision problems can pose learning problems for children. Vision problems can have effects on a child's emotional, educational and physical development. A majority of children entering school never have received a vision test and, for those who do receive a vision test and do not pass, many do not receive the recommended follow-up care. This legislation will enable more children to receive testing and the follow-up care, if necessary. We need to continue to work towards a system by which roadblocks to a formative education for our children are eliminated. I stand in support of this legislation, and hope that my colleagues will join in. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Well, I want to first thank my friend from Missouri for yielding and for hosting this hour to talk about the real dangers of this road that we're going down. This is a budget proposal, this budget that we're talking about, especially these record levels of spending, but they are all proposals right now that have been filed by President Obama. Some of these are bills that have not even gone through committee yet but that are going to be going through committee. I think what is happening and what we are seeing around the country is that the American public, during these tough economic times, is dealing with their problems. Families are cutting back right now. We are seeing that all across the country. People are saving money. They are paying down debt because they know that we are in tough times. We all hope that we get out of these tough times soon, but I think what is concerning people are some of the policy decisions coming out of Washington right now: these proposals by President Obama for these record levels of spending, with record levels of borrowing and of not borrowing from a savings account but borrowing from our children and grandchildren--because this is money we don't have-- coupled with record tax increases. These are not just tax increases on the rich--and I don't think class warfare is a good thing at any time. It is surely not a good thing now, during these tough economic times, to be threatening over $600 billion in new taxes, the bulk of which will fall on the backs of our small business owners--on the people who actually hire and employ 70 percent of the American workforce right now.

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you. I see our time has about expired, but I think the important note that we're finishing on, and I appreciate your passion because there are so many people that are passionate, and that's what's great about this country, and we can stop this runaway train by continuing to have this debate tonight.

Mr. SCALISE. There are a lot of things that we are saying ``yes'' to. We are saying ``yes'' to fiscal responsibility. We're saying ``yes'' to lower taxes. I think people all across the country are saying ``yes'' to that, too, and that's why they're all pointing to Washington, and they're saying, ``no,'' don't continue going down this road of runaway spending, runaway deficit, runaway borrowing from our children and grandchildren. We can pursue new technologies, as the judge talked about. There are companies right now pursuing technologies for carbon capture and sequestration where they literally would be going into those coal plants and capturing the carbon and storing it, holding on to it so it doesn't go into the air. We're pursuing and continuing to encourage the development of wind power, of nuclear power, of solar power, but all of those technologies combined are what it's going to take to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. If that's our goal, and it should be our goal to increase our production of our own natural resources in this country, but what we've got to be very careful about as we discuss the dangers of this spending proposal and these taxes is what it does to future generations. And there's one final chart I wanted to show, and that is what President Obama's budget does to raid the Social Security trust fund. This is a promise that was made not only to our senior citizens of today but to our workers of today and our children of tomorrow if they want to expect that Social Security program to be there for them, that they're paying into right now. The fact, President Obama's budget in the first four years takes over $200 billion a year out of the Social Security trust fund. It actually raids those funds after the first four years of President Obama's term in office. He would raid over $900 billion from the Social Security trust fund alone, and then, of course, he still goes other places. He tries to sell debts to countries like China. We just saw today--today, something very frightening happened. The markets reacted very negatively to it. They went out and tried to sell debt, as the country does throughout the course of each week. A few times a week the country goes and actually sells debt. When they went today to sell debt, the number of people that wanted to buy that debt dropped to a low level--dangerously low level--and in fact they had to pull back. And you saw the markets drop dramatically because I think it is a sign. It's a sign that people are very concerned about these runaway deficits and what this is going to do to the value of the dollar down the road. And that's why we've got to be fiscally responsible. We've got to say ``yes'' to fiscal responsibility and stop this out-of-control spending that is going on in Washington.

Mr. SCALISE. The competition is not Missouri. In fact, the only competition is really the United States Congress is because what this company has said is they want to build this plant in the United States. They want to keep these jobs in the United States. This is a $2 billion investment, and we're not talking about government money. We're not talking about bailouts. It seems like some people in the White House and the leadership in Congress, they only want to give taxpayer money away to people to create jobs. This is a private company that wants to spend $2 billion of their own money to build this steel plant which would create 700 good, high- paying jobs, and they want to do that here in United States. And they said there's one thing holding them back, and that's the President cap- and-trade plan. If the President's cap-and-trade plan, the energy tax, passes, they will not be able to build that plant in the United States. Now, that plant will still be built. So people that think that this plant's going to do some damage to the environment, first of all, they don't have science backing them up on that. But if they think that, first of all, they're wrong because that plant will be built, but it's going to be built in Brazil. Those 700 good, high-paying jobs, the $2 billion of private sector investment will all be sent to Brazil. And Brazil's not going to use the same environmental controls, the same safeguards that we would use if that plant was run here. So that's a real direct example, and that's one example. That's one of countless examples of what the President's cap-and-trade energy tax would do, not only to raise taxes on every American family, as even his own budget director pointed out, but also the direct loss in American jobs that would be shipped overseas if this plan passed. And this isn't something that we're just coming up with. This is something a corporation has said publicly that they want to spend $2 billion to create 700 jobs here in America.

Mr. SCALISE. It absolutely does not make sense to be doing this in good times or in bad, but especially when we talk about the economic times our country's facing, where unemployment is going up and just exceeded 8 percent nationally. The estimates that are just starting to come out on the President's cap-and-trade--and he calls it a cap-and-trade bill, but clearly, this is an energy tax, a tax on energy to the tune, according to the President's budget, and this is not our number. This is the numbers that the President gave us. He expects to generate over $640 billion in new revenue through this energy tax, and this is something that's going to be paid for by every American family. His budget director, Peter Orszag, a year ago when he was working for the Congressional Budget Office actually said this type of plan, this cap-and-trade energy tax, would cost every American family that uses energy roughly $1,200 a month minimum more in their electricity bill. Plus, anything that is produced by energy, any product that's produced by energy, would also increase in cost because this tax would be passed on. And so, as the judge said, these goods, food, clothes, anything that's shipped by rail, by car, by truck, by ship, all of these goods will be taxed through this energy tax, the cost being passed on to the consumer. What's more, early estimates in the first year alone, numbers we got from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, showed that we would lose, the United States, would lose over 600,000 jobs that would leave this country. And we talk about the dangers of exporting jobs, losing jobs to foreign countries. Countries like China and India are not be going to be complying with this tax. I will give you an example of a business, an opportunity, that is delayed right now, a job-creating opportunity in a time when we want to be creating jobs. In south Louisiana, there is a steel mill that a company from North Carolina was going to be building, and they're right now deciding between two sites. One site's in the United States, and it's in south Louisiana right outside of my district, but it's in south Louisiana. The other alternative location is in Brazil. So they're not even looking in the United States if they don't go to this location.

Mr. SCALISE. As we look at all of these numbers--and, of course, it can become overwhelming. It looks like something that's almost hard to believe when you look at these record levels. But I think all across the country what you're seeing is people really are looking at this level of spending, and it is something that people don't want to stomach. It's something that they don't feel comfortable with. They realize how reckless this level of spending is. In fact, all across the country right now we're starting to see TEA parties sprouting up. These are things that aren't being even organized. There was one I heard of in Orlando, Florida, the other day. Two housewives got very angry. They got mad. They wanted to channel all their anger that's been going on in Washington and all of the borrowing from our children and grandchildren, and they decided they were just going to put together a protest against all of this spending. Over 3,000 people showed up at this rally. In my district on April 15 in the largest parish in Louisiana they are planning a TEA party. They are also planning another one in a place called St. Tammany because people are angry about the spending. They want to stop this because the good news is--and as we have been talking about all of this there is a silver lining--and the silver lining is this budget has not passed yet. This budget has been proposed by President Obama, but I think as he's laid it out there, not just Republicans but Democrats, Independents all across the country are speaking up just like we are here tonight on the House floor. People all across the country are speaking up saying, Enough is enough. Stop this runaway spending. And I think that's encouraging because there is an opportunity to slow this train down to regain fiscal responsibility.

Mr. SCALISE. I'll give my friend from Missouri an example. I come from Louisiana. I was born in New Orleans. We've got some of the best restaurants in the world in New Orleans, and that is an undisputed fact, and I'm very proud of that fact, but if I were to decide tomorrow to go out every single night and eat at these world-class restaurants and, let's say, starting tomorrow and for a couple of days that I gained about 40 pounds while eating out and I say I'm going to cut my weight gain in half, after a couple of weeks, I'm down to a 20-pound increase. Well, at that point, I'm still 20 pounds heavier than when I started. And so what happens is he starts off by raising, by actually going on, instead of an eating binge where you can get some good enjoyment out of the food, he goes on a spending binge spending money that we don't have, that our children and grandchildren who, I am sure, would not approve of this. And, of course, I have got a 2-year-old daughter. Nobody's asked her if she approves of this spending because she is going to have to pay for it. And yet they go on this spending binge in the first year and continue it all the way out through the full 4-year term of President Obama. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that in the first 5\1/2\ years since President Obama took the oath of office, the national debt will double in those 5 years--double from the point that this country started, going back to George Washington through President Bush, all the debt that has been inherited in our country for that entire period of time, over 230 years, President Obama, in just 5\1/2\ years, will double that record level of debt.

Mr. SCALISE. More than tripling the deficit in just 1 year, and this is the latest projection. Now it is $1.9 trillion, roughly, in deficit spending that President Obama's budget has. Clearly, this is not an inherited number. This is something that he has proposed spending and that we are going to fight. We are actively fighting it right now. I think, if you look across the country, the American people are seeing what these record deficits would mean. When the President says--and he said it again last night--that he wants to cut the deficit in half, I think a lot of people are starting to realize now that what he is saying is kind of a play on words, because he is not talking about cutting the deficit in half from the deficit that he truly inherited. He inherited a $400 billion deficit--again, a number that, I think, is too high. So, if we agree that that number is too high and the President, himself--and of course, he was a Senator for the last 4 years, and he voted for some of these budgets--agrees that a $400 billion deficit is too high and he wants to cut it in half, then you would think that means he is going to have a $200 billion deficit, but that is not what is happening in his budget. He actually proposes in his very first year a $1.7 trillion deficit, triple the budget deficit that he ``inherited.'' By his fourth year, he is still over $1 trillion now in deficits. So, clearly, he is not cutting it in half. He has raised the bar the first year to a record- level-high deficit, and still his fourth year is more than double the deficit that he inherited in the first year.

Mr. SCALISE. What you are pointing out is exactly the concern that is going on throughout the country, the fact that, in the 65 days President Obama has been in office, our country has already incurred over $1 trillion in new debt. We keep hearing the word ``inherited'' a lot, and the President tries to imply that every problem that is out there and all of these spending bills are all things that he inherited. First of all, the porkulus bill, as you call it--the spending bill that added over $1 trillion of new debt, which was his major initiative, his first initiative--actually was something that President Obama decided to do on his own. That added another $1 trillion. His budget that he has filed is a record. This is a chart here that depicts the budget deficits over the last few years, but then project it forward under President Obama's budget, and you can see the first year of President Obama's budget is a record. It was $1.7 trillion. Just on Friday of last week, the Congressional Budget Office updated the numbers because they recognize now there is even more deficit spending, and they recognize the fact that now there will be over $1.9 trillion of deficit spending just in President Obama's first budget. This is not a budget President Bush proposed. In fact, President Bush's last budget, as you can see, was somewhere in the $400 billion number, a number I'm not comfortable and, I'm sure, that my friend from Missouri is not comfortable with.

Mr. SCALISE. Sixty-five days to be exact.

Mr. SCALISE. $350 billion.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate what the gentleman from Georgia talked about, because that is, in fact, the reason that we are here tonight. It is not that we are willing to throw in the towel, take this and just accept this train to run down the track. What we are trying to do is talk about this problem and not just lay out the proposals that are here before us, but the implications of those proposals, to families all across this country. In fact, these proposals fly in the face of the decisions that families across this country are making themselves. As they deal with tough economic times, people are actually acting in a responsible way. They are cutting back their spending. They are setting money aside and paying down debt. But they are sure not going deeper into debt. If you have got a high credit card balance, the last thing you do is go order two more credit cards and then run up the balance on those. That is what the President's proposal in his budget does. It, in fact, triples the current year level of deficit spending. I want to make this point again as we talk about the history revisionism that is going on as people talk about what they inherited. There was a deficit that President Obama inherited. The problem is that he is tripling that deficit in his first budget out the box. He is tripling that level of spending in a way that is irresponsible. He even acknowledges, as he is doing it, that deficit spending is irresponsible. And anybody is free to go back in time and criticize people in the past who helped create this national debt that we have. I have surely done it. Many others have done it. But when you criticize something, you don't replace the thing that you're criticizing by doing it two or three times even worse. So, if he is going to stand with us and criticize the deficit spending, then he needs to actually stand with us and start cutting this Federal budget, not tripling, tripling the size of this debt, the national deficit that we are going to be facing next year. And so that is what we are talking about tonight is what we are going to be fighting in the coming months. One of the people at the forefront of that fight is my friend on the Budget Committee, Mr. Jordan from Ohio.

Mr. SCALISE. I think when people look to Washington, they are looking for leadership. They are not looking for just more checks thrown around or cash thrown around to States or to people. What they want to see is policies, good sound policies to respond to the things that are happening across the country. I think people are very concerned. We are finally starting to see people speak up and not just complain at home or sit on their couch. They are literally standing up and going to these tea parties that they are having all across the country now. In fact on April 15, the day that many of us dread, the day that we pay our taxes, that is the day that many of these tea parties are going to be held throughout the country where people are in essence revolting against this record level of spending, this record level of borrowing, deficit spending and taking money that we don't have from our kids and grandkids to run up these massive deficits each year under the President's budget. They are doing it because they know that this hasn't happened yet. They are proposals by this President. But this is a President like any, and this is a Congress like any, that needs to respond to what people are saying across this country. And so while we are speaking on this floor tonight talking about the dangers of deficit spending and record borrowing and these taxes that are being proposed, and we are trying to stop this from happening, people across the country are doing the same thing. I think my friend here is going to chime in as well and talk about this.

Mr. SCALISE. Again, I thank the gentleman from Ohio. And what you talked about, we definitely are going to cover in detail later on throughout this hour tonight on both the historical side, as my friend from North Louisiana talked about even going back to World War II and some of the flaws of the spending that was encountered during the New Deal leading up to World War II, but also on today's proposal, that proposal that you will be looking at in the Budget Committee. Mr. Speaker, one of the things we want to point out on this tax proposal, because when the President talked throughout the campaign, when he talked here on the House floor just a few weeks ago, one of the things he said was 95 percent of the American people will not see their taxes raised by a dime. And while he may have been technically accurate in that statement, what many people are finding out now by the cap-and- trade, what many of us call an energy tax or a cap-and-tax proposal, those American families that are making in the bottom 95 percent, so to speak, in this country, they won't be seeing a dime increase, they will be seeing over $3,000 a year in tax increases in the form of higher energy bills, and that is this proposal that is in the President's budget, $1.4 trillion in new taxes. Some of this falls on the people making over $250,000. Here, we are playing class warfare, something that I don't agree with because it is not good policy. But this right here, the small business and investor's tax, generates $630 billion. This is what the President talks about when he says for those people who are in the top 5 percent of income earners, people making over $250,000, will see a tax increase. What he is talking about is a $636 billion tax increase, half of which will fall on the backs of small business owners in this country. The people that actually employ more than 70 percent of the American workforce will be seeing a tax increase. Now, anybody that can explain how that is good fiscal policy, especially during tough economic times, the floor is open for them to discuss it, because no one has yet to come and explain that. This is a horrible proposal. But on top of that, what they have also proposed is this cap-and-trade tax, and it is $640 billion. That hasn't been talked about much by the President in terms of its impact, but what this tax means, in fact the budget director for the President just 1 year ago when he was working for the Congressional Budget Office said that this would mean over $1,600 a year in new taxes that people would pay on their electricity bills. So I guess what he means when you are not going to pay another dime, $1,300 to $1,600 a year in new energy taxes is not a dime, but it something that would break many families in this country. But it would fall on the backs of every family in this country. No family under the current proposal is exempted. So a married couple making $30,000 a year with two kids will be paying about $1,300 a year more in energy costs from the President's own budget. This is bad policy. This is policy that we are going to fight. We are going to fight it in committee. It hopefully will not get to this House floor, but we will fight it on this floor. And one of the people that will be fighting that battle with us is our good friend from Georgia (Mr. Broun).