Steve Scalise

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Not just a thousand, $1,300 a year in electricity tax increases that people would be paying on their electric bill every year. This isn't a one-time thing.

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 FY 2009 Omnibus. Requesting Member: Congressman Steve Scalise Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus Account: HHS, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)-- Health Facilities and Services Legal Name of Requesting Entity: West Jefferson Medical Center Address of Requesting Entity: 1101 Medical Center Boulevard, Marrero, Louisiana 70072 Description of Request: I have secured $190,000 for West Jefferson Medical Center in Marrero, Louisiana. This funding will be used to relocate and upgrade emergency electrical system switchgear to above the 1st floor of the hospital to prevent loss of power due to possible flooding. It would also add on-site electrical generation capacity to power the entire facility with on-site diesel fuel for up to seven days. The upgrade would add an additional 1,500 KW generator and a 24,000 gallon diesel fuel tank capacity. It relocates and rewires the existing 13 mission critical electrical switchgear locations to an upper level to ensure continued operation in the event of flooding and municipal power interruption. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. Requesting Member: Congressman Steve Scalise Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus Account: Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (ETA)--Training and Employment Services (TES) Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Southeastern Louisiana University Address of Requesting Entity: SLU Box 10784, Hammond, Louisiana 70402 Description of Request: I have secured $190,000 for the Southeastern Louisiana University Economic and Workforce Development Initiative. The funding would be used to expand its pilot initiative to provide one stop economic/workforce development and community planning/smart growth assistance to meet the needs of Post-Katrina southeast Louisiana. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. Requesting Member: Congressman Steve Scalise Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus Account: DOT, Transportation, Community and System Preservation Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Regional Planning Commission Address of Requesting Entity: 1340 Poydras Street, Ste. 2100, New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Description of Request: I have secured $285,000 for the Regional Planning Commission. The funding would be used for geometric and signalization improvements to Almedia Road (LA 50) at its intersections with US 61 to the north and LA 48 to the south. Almedia Road is a key north-south connector route on the eastbank of St. Charles Parish linking petrochemical facilities, refineries, and grain elevators along the Mississippi River with the national highway system, specifically, US 61, 1-310 and 1-10. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. Requesting Member: Congressman Steve Scalise Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus Account: DOT, Transportation, Community and System Preservation Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Regional Planning Commission Address of Requesting Entity: 1340 Poydras Street, Ste. 2100, New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Description of Request: I have secured $356,250 for the Regional Planning Commission. The funding would be used to upgrade transportation and drainage on Clearview Parkway (LA Hwy. 3152) at the interchange area with Earhart Expressway (LA 3139) in the Elmwood area of Jefferson Parish. The Department of Transportation and Development (LaDOTD) will be the grant recipient on behalf of Jefferson Parish and the State of Louisiana. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. Requesting Member: Congressman Steve Scalise Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus Account: DOT, Transportation, Community and System Preservation Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Regional Planning Commission Address of Requesting Entity: 1340 Poydras Street, Ste. 2100, New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Description of Request: I have secured $175,000 for the Regional Planning Commission. The funding would be used for construction of a Service Road of I-10 between LA 433 and US 190B in Slidell. This area of the Northshore has seen significant growth and development in the last decade. This trend is anticipated to continue and to expand further as the New Orleans region resettles as a result of Hurricane Katrina. The Department of Transportation and Development (LaDOTD) will be the grant recipient on behalf of St. Tammany Parish and the State of Louisiana. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. Requesting Member: Congressman Steve Scalise Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus Account: DOT, Transportation, Community and System Preservation Legal Name of Requesting Entity: St. Tammany Parish government Address of Requesting Entity: PO Box 628, Covington, Louisiana 70434 Description of Request: I have secured $237,500 for St. Tammany Parish government. This funding would be used for an interchange at 1- 12 and LA Highway 1088 in order to take traffic congestion off LA Highway 59 and US Highway 190. Traffic congestion is very heavy due to the continued population migration into St. Tammany Parish, the need for more schools and the expansion of retail and commercial businesses and residential subdivisions. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project. Requesting Member: Congressman Steve Scalise Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus Account: DOT, Transportation, Community and System Preservation Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Regional Planning Commission Address of Requesting Entity: 1340 Poydras Street, Ste. 2100, New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Description of Request: I have secured $237,500 for the Regional Planning Commission. This funding would be used for the widening of US 190 to a four lane section between US 11 and LA 433 in Slidell. The project is needed to alleviate severe congestion along the roadway that services the City of Slidell and eastern St. Tammany Parish. The project would help alleviate increasing congestion along the I-10/1-12 corridor by providing an alternative to the interstate. The Department of Transportation and Development (LaDOTD) will be the grant recipient on behalf of St. Tammany Parish and the State of Louisiana. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, as we start to debate the budget that was submitted last week, I think a lot of Americans all across the country and a lot of people here in this Chamber have some very serious concerns about the direction that this administration seems to be taking us in. This rampant spending and tax increases are dangerous to our country and our economy at a time when we are having trouble and difficulty all across the land. The last thing we need is a $1.4 trillion tax increase, over $600 billion of which would fall on the backs of every small business owner in this country, and over $600 billion in the form of a carbon tax, a tax on energy, that every consumer in this country would pay in higher utility rates. This is surely not the time to be raising taxes to the tune of over $1.4 trillion on the backs of small businesses and families across this country. We need to go in a better direction. We will be proposing that, and hopefully the administration will work with us to put us on a better path to get our country back on track.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I want to thank my friend from Mississippi, as well as the gentlelady from Tennessee, because as we start to see the real numbers--and the American public has been concerned about where the economy is--but they are also real concerned--and we're seeing more and more each day--real concerned about the gross level of spending that's coming out of this administration as a response to the crisis. I think if you look at what's being presented, and as people are now starting to look and grab some of these numbers--and we're not just talking about hundreds of billions of dollars now; we're talking about well over a projected deficit of $1.7 trillion in this budget. So it makes people harken back and say, number one, what levels do these compare to. And when you look back, you can go back--you have to go all the way back to World War II to find a budget, a level of spending that's presented in this budget, a level of spending that's as high a gross domestic product of a percentage of GDP that we've had. And we haven't had this high a level of spending since World War II. So if you go back to World War II and, of course, the Great Depression right before it, it really sparks a lot of comparisons that are frightening. And I think that's where the public is, but that's where the markets are. I know my friend from Tennessee talked about that, too. The markets are responding to what's happening here in this city in Washington, D.C., and it's not good. Their reaction is not good, what that means for people's 401(k)s. Just in the last 2 months, people have lost 20 percent of their 401(k)s because of the results of these policies not only that were passed in the spending bill just 2 weeks ago, but this budget that's been presented with its gross level of spending with its absorbitant level of tax increases. So if we look here at a chart, this is a break down of the President's proposal of tax increases that's in this budget, this budget that has $1.7 trillion of new debt--not debt that was carried over from the previous administration. The buck stops here. And this President submitted this budget, he created this new level of spending, and he's choosing to pay for some of it--clearly not all of it--but some of it by one of the largest tax increases in the history of our country. And while he says that less than 5 percent of the people of this country will pay these taxes, this chart will show you something very different, a stark difference in what we've been hearing; $1.4 trillion has been proposed by this President in this budget in new taxes at a time, of course, that our economy is in a recession.

Mr. SCALISE. If I could ask for the gentleman to yield for one moment.

Mr. SCALISE. What you said is exactly true. And there is a double whammy on this budget on the tax increases that have been proposed. Not only do $636 billion in new taxes get thrown onto the backs of small businesses all across this country, but then they come through the back door; and this is where the rest of the 95 percent of the people that supposedly aren't going to pay a new dime in new taxes, this is where they get hit. This is their energy proposal on cap and trade. A carbon tax. This is something that you haven't heard a lot of people on the Democratic side talking about because as people see what this does, they realize this is where everybody else pays more money: $646 in new taxes on energy production in this country. And, of course, all across this country as energy taxes are increased, who pays for those taxes? That's not something that they just absorb. They have the authority to pass that on to rate payers.

Mr. SCALISE. I'm sorry if you already ate dinner. I'm sorry to upset your stomach. But a lot of people across the country are starting to get very upset as they see the realization of these proposals because change as a concept sounds great. There are a lot of things we need to change about Washington, D.C. In fact, we've proposed an alternative H.R. 470. You can actually go on line. We put our proposals on line. We put that proposal out there weeks and weeks ago. H.R. 470 is a true alternative to get our economy back on track. What we've been presented with, unfortunately, with this administration is the oldest failed policy that will keep us deeper in a, not only recession, but can throw us into a recession; and that is a tax-and-spend approach, which has been proven to fail every time. So this cap and trade program right here, this is--they can call it whatever they want, but when you start having to pay higher fees on your utility bills, that's a tax to you. That's a tax increase. If your utility bill goes up and you're using the same amount of energy because of this carbon tax $646 billion, if people across the country don't think that's going to result in something that's going to have a significant impact on their budgets as they're tightening. And people are conserving energy. People are tightening their belts. But as they're conserving that energy, they're going to be getting hit with $646 billion in new taxes on top of the $636.00 billion that our small businesses will be hit with.

Mr. SCALISE. That's not only right, but those people in the lower incomes are the ones that are least likely to be able to afford these massive tax increases they get on their utility bills. Because if your utility bill goes up even though you're using the same amount of energy, or in some cases you're using less energy--maybe you actually went and put some insulation in your attic because you wanted to lower your rates--this carbon tax is actually going to raise your utility bills even though you've done those things.

Mr. SCALISE. There is one bit of good news. While these are difficult times, while there's a lot of bad news--and as people look at these details, it frightens a lot of people. But this has not been passed into law yet. These are proposals the President just filed this last week. We haven't even started having hearings in Congress. If people all across this country--as I'm sure they will do when they start realizing the negative impacts to our economy of these new taxes, these massive taxes--people, I think, are going to start lighting up those phones. They're going to start calling their congressmen. They're going to call the White House. And they are going to say enough is enough. The spending and the taxes, just like in the 1930s, didn't work. Don't take my word for it. Listen to the Treasury Secretary under FDR. This has been tried before and it's failed before. Not only did it fail, it pushed us into a deeper depression. And I think the public across this country is going to say, ``Enough is enough. We're not going to take these new taxes and this ridiculous level of spending,'' and the public can stop this.

Mr. SCALISE. I think when we talk about, now that we're in a recession, will we be going to a depression, look at what happened in this 1920s and the 1930s as we did go into a depression. And in many cases, it was policies in Washington, D.C., that not only pushed us into the depression but kept us there for 8 years. We were in the depression for 8 years. It took World War II to get us out of it. And if you go back to 1932, the President who raised taxes during an economic downturn that was so severe in the 1930s--Herbert Hoover raised taxes, of all things, while the country was entering a depression. In 1932, Herbert Hoover on his way out as being voted out as President, he raised taxes dramatically. We're seeing the same process followed again. And then the people say, ``Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.'' When this country was entering the Great Depression in the 1930s, they raised taxes dramatically, and it helped--that and the gross level of spending--helped make that an 8-year process instead of a short depression that we could have gotten out of. So if I can go back to this chart. Where are the taxes going to be paid? Who's going to be paying for those taxes? It's $636 billion of those new taxes are going to be thrown onto the backs of our small business owners. So when they talk about people who make over $250,000 a year--and I know some people want to pay class warfare and try to divide this country at a time when we need to be uniting this country and finding real solutions--they talk about that top 5 percent. Well, who is that top 5 percent? That's the small business owners in our country who have created 70 percent of our jobs. So if anybody can explain to me how raising $636 billion in new taxes on the backs of those very people who are creating the jobs that our economy needs, how is that going to get our economy back on track? That's something that the markets are reacting to and people across this country are starting to realize that it's a frightening realization.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you. I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri. What we've been talking about is the concern that a lot of us have with the runaway spending we have here in Washington. And as we all sat in this Chamber last night and listened to the President, there were a number of things he said that I think we all agreed with. One of the things that he harped on was the concern about adding more money, billions and trillions of dollars, to the national debt, and I share that concern. But I think what's even of more concern is that, if we look at what's happened in these last 6 weeks, we've seen not a reduction in spending, not a reduction in debts, we've seen a dramatic increase. In fact, in just the last 6 weeks since Barack Obama has been President, we've seen over $2 trillion added to the national debt. That's a 20 percent increase in the national debt. And that's the burden that our children and our grandchildren are going to have to inherit.

Mr. SCALISE. In a period of 6 weeks between the spending bill that was passed and signed into law last week, added $800 billion in new government spending--not a bill to help stimulate our economy; a bill to massively grow the size of government, many programs, as you discussed, that are permanent programs, not one-time infrastructure spending. The other thing--and tomorrow there will be a bill filed; the President will be presenting his new budget. The expectations of what we're hearing is that that budget will be over $1 trillion out of balance. More money added to the national debt. And on top of that, a bill that a lot of us that are concerned about this runaway spending voted against, but a bill that passed today was this omnibus bill: $400 billion of additional spending, representing an 8 percent increase in government spending at a time when States and families across this country are cutting back their spending because of tough economic times. Seems like Washington's the only place going on a spending spree. It's hard to picture when yesterday you hear somebody talking about the dangers of adding more money to the national debt, ironically on Mardi Gras day, and it seems like today and tomorrow, when these bills are filed, adding trillions more debt, it seems like the same people are trying to act like the King of Carnival, throwing beads and trinkets to people with more government spending. This was a picture that was actually in the New Orleans newspaper yesterday on Mardi Gras Day, and it talked about and it shows people throwing money, literally throwing money from a float. And it's titled ``Stimulus,'' and they said, ``We'll worry about the hangover tomorrow.'' And the sad part of it is, it's not our money that they're throwing. It's not only the taxpayers' money, but it's our children and grandchildren's money that they're throwing, because this is money we don't have. This is money that's going to go out and be printed up on a printing press because we don't have that money sitting in a bank somewhere. And so it adds more money--over 20 percent in 6 weeks has been added to the national debt. And that's the burden our children and grandchildren will inherit. And this has to end.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding. This is a very critical debate. It is a debate on the most important issue facing our country. We are talking now about the single largest spending bill in the history of our country being rammed through with very little debate. There are closed-door, backroom deals being cut right now on the actual final product that we're going to vote on today. None of us here can even see it. We were told this was going to be the most transparent administration. The American people can't even go online right now and see it. They can't even get a copy faxed to them because there is no copy available. It's being debated behind closed doors and with no public input, and we're starting to hear about some things that may be in it. I think it concerns a lot of people as they have already seen some things that are in this bill that are very concerning. We are hearing that there are going to be billions of dollars for a railroad between California and Las Vegas. I don't know about you, my good friend from Iowa, but we used to hear that what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. I guess now what happens in Vegas is going to affect every taxpayer in this country. Billions of dollars on that one item. There is language that we're hearing is going to be in this bill that will undermine the welfare reforms that were made in the 1990s, welfare reforms that have been dramatically successful in helping people get off of welfare and get off of that government dependence and finally get jobs--good, healthy jobs, good-paying jobs, good careers. For those single women who are out there who are, maybe, single mothers who are finally getting a good career opportunity, that is being taken away from them with the undermining of this welfare reform that is in this language. The health care czar, this is something that we have never even heard about before. Now we're finding out there is language that is going to create some kind of health care czar that will basically be able to ration health care. So there are some major changes in here that do not stimulate the economy at all, that do not create any jobs but that make some very dramatic policy changes that will affect adversely many, many millions of people across this country and that will hurt our economy even worse at a time when we need to be turning it around. We have presented good alternatives to try to get our economy back on track which would create jobs in the middle class for those small businesses. I just want to read one final word before we leave, because all of this massive spending is creating tremendous debt. Just look at what FDR's Treasury Secretary said after the New Deal with all of the spending they did. ``We are spending more than we have ever spent before, and it does not work. I say, after 8 years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt to boot.'' Let's not make the mistakes of the past. I yield back.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, as our country faces tough economic times, I think it is very important that we act responsibly to do the right thing to address this problem as opposed to what some people are proposing, and that is just to ram through something with expediency, not worrying about the consequences. I think we don't need to look any further than in our past to make sure, as people said before, if you don't learn from the mistakes of your past, you're doomed to repeat them. Let's look at what the Treasury Secretary under FDR said during the New Deal. Henry Morgenthau said, ``After 8 years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started, and an enormous debt to boot.'' He went on to say about the New Deal during the 1930s, ``I have got my responsibility to my country, which comes first. We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before, and it does not work.'' That is not a Republican speaking. That was the Treasury Secretary under FDR. Spending massive amounts of money doesn't work. It saddles future generations with more debt. There is a better alternative, and that is to cut taxes and control the spending like many of us propose.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. As we talk about this resolution that we're debating that's a resolution I support, I want to read the very last segment of this, in the resolve portion, where it says, ``so that the United States remains vigilant in protecting our Nation's core values of equality, due process of law, justice and fundamental fairness.'' I think it would be real helpful for a lot of people on the other side to go and read those statements and then look at what's happening with this massive $840 billion spending bill that's rolling through this Congress at breakneck speed, with no debate, no opportunity, as we're finding out, to have any real formal presentation of a conference report on a bill that's going to saddle our next generation and future generations with the most massive debt in this biggest spending bill in the history of our country. And I think if we look, we're starting to hear today that one of the reasons that they're rolling with so much haste, much more important to them that they pass it quickly than that we get it right, and one of the reasons we're finding out is that some of the leadership are taking a vacation. Now, I don't know about other Members, but I know people in my district that are unemployed that are looking for jobs, would much rather see us spend the time, stay here, cancel the vacations, because many of them are canceling their vacations; make sure we spend the time to get it right. That's the most important thing to the American people. And so as we look at this bill that we're debating, this resolution that talks about fundamental fairness, I think we need to be concerned about the fundamental fairness to the American people of getting it right. And we don't need to look back and figure out how to start over from scratch. History tells us that massive spending doesn't work. FDR's Treasury Secretary, in one of the largest spending bills in history, this bill, this spending bill that the administration's pushing through tops it. FDR's own Treasury Secretary said, we have tried spending money. We're spending more money than we ever have spent before and it does not work. We need to take a different approach. There's a much better alternative on the table, and for whatever reason, some in the leadership don't even want to look at it. Let's take the time and get it right.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding. What we have been talking about is a discussion we have been having here on this floor for the last few weeks. I am very encouraged that so many people across this country have started to really look at this bill closely and to recognize that, in fact, the bill that has been moving through the legislature here in Congress in the last few weeks is not, in fact, a stimulus bill. It is a massive spending bill, a bill that really will not do much to help get the economy started. The Congressional Budget Office reports, of course, show that very little of this money will go into the economy, but what it will do is add a massive additional national debt to a debt that is already over $11 trillion. We are already hearing that this bill is already approaching $900 billion. Some reports show over $1 trillion. In addition, the budget that is going to be presented in just a few weeks by President Obama is expected to be $1 trillion out of balance. All of this money that would be added to the national debt could add over 25 percent in 1 year to the total national debt of this country, whether or not it would actually provide stimulus to the economy. Most reports show it would not create any jobs. What it would do is increase inflation, devalue the dollar and put a tremendous burden on our children and grandchildren. I think that is why it is so important that we have worked so hard to come up with an alternative plan, a better way to solve this problem. That is, to go and look at tax cuts that will actually help middle-class families and small businesses that will create the jobs, not government spending, which in many cases has been spent on programs that have failed in the past and that create more government jobs. We need to be creating jobs in the private sector, and that is what I think is so encouraging. As we have been presenting these alternatives, I think people across the country have seen and have realized that this is a much better way. It is so important after the failed bailouts of the last year that we get this right, and that is why it is important that we have been talking about this as people are seeing it. I think they are realizing some of the same things that we saw in that bipartisan vote last week when not only all Republicans voted ``no'' but when, in fact, nearly a dozen Democrats also could not even stomach some of the spending by their own leadership and said ``no'' as well, because there is a better way. I appreciate the fact that you have been highlighting this, as have other Members, to show that there are better ways to solve this problem for the American people and to show how the American people have, I think, galvanized and have said the same thing. Big government spending in Washington is not going to solve this problem. Let's let middle- class families who are out there tightening their belts already in States that are trying to balance their own budgets show the better way as opposed to the failed old approaches of liberal, big government spending. So I think the fact that we need to look out for our children and grandchildren is an extra highlight and why it is so important that we get this right and that we solve this problem the correct way. That is what this alternative plan does. I yield back.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. Our country is facing tough economic times. When you look across the country, you see families tightening their belts. You see States cutting back to balance their budgets. Washington seems to be the only place that is going on a wild spending spree during these tough economic times. We need to help our families and our businesses and our entrepreneurs by providing tax relief to create good jobs, rather than saddling our children and grandchildren with hundreds of billions of dollars in additional national debt. As we debate the importance of stimulating our economy, it is critical that we act responsibly and that we get it right this time. The Democratic leadership's massive spending bill does not do enough to help middle-class families and small businesses. A Congressional Budget Office report just came out saying that more than half of the Democrats' proposed spending bill will not even begin until after 2010. This defeats the purpose of stimulus. I have joined with other Members of Congress to propose an alternative plan called the Economic Recovery and Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2009. H.R. 470 focuses on cutting taxes to create jobs quickly and get our Nation's economy back on track. Rather than adding hundreds of billions of dollars in new national debt, our alternative plan will create jobs by cutting taxes for middle class families and small businesses, while also protecting future generations by reining in out-of-control spending here in Washington, D.C. When President Barack Obama called for a bill to stimulate our Nation's economy, I don't think he or the American people expected it to be hijacked by the liberals in Congress and turned into a big government spending bill. Last week there were a dozen Democrats who joined in a bipartisan vote against this massive spending bill. In fact, just yesterday the Speaker of the House's spokesperson said of those voting against the spending bill, ``Many of the districts are more conservative and they campaigned on fiscal responsibility, and we understand that.'' What the Speaker of the House was saying is she is recognizing that people who voted against the bill last week were voting for fiscal responsibility. The American people are learning more about this bill every day, and they are starting to recognize that it is nothing more than a wild spending bill of failed, old, big government programs. We need to set a different path. We need to get it right this time. We need to pass a bill that actually cuts taxes and gets our economy back on track.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I'd like to thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding, and I rise in opposition to this bill to delay the transfer to digital. I think if we look at what this could do for our economy, number one, we are talking about the problems that we are having in our economy right now, and we want to create good jobs. There are billions of dollars of investment that are sitting on the sidelines right now, waiting to move, waiting to create new technologies, and create good new jobs in our economy, that this delay will further hamper. In addition to that, I think we need to be very concerned about what this means to our first responders. It was just read into the Record from the president of the National Fraternal Order of Police, but also what this would mean for our firefighters as they try to implement interoperable capabilities, something that we experienced after Katrina, we saw after September 11, something we need to get to. Something, again, this delay will only hurt their ability to make those changes that they want so desperately to make for the safety of our people all throughout the country. So there are many strong reasons why we are ready to get this implementation to take place and why we should oppose any delay.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. SCALISE. We are at that crossroad, and that's why it is so important we have this conversation now, because this is a bipartisan issue. If you look at what is happening all across the country, it's not just Republican Governors, but it's Democrat Governors who are also making those same responsible decisions to cut back rather than to increase taxes and rather than to go into deeper debt. It is Republican and Democrat and independent families across our country who are making those tough decisions. So I think that we, as responsible Members of Congress, can join on both sides, Republican and Democrat, and do what's right for the taxpayers and for the future generations so that they're not saddled with this extra $1.3 billion of deeper deficit spending.

Mr. SCALISE. One last thought, if the gentleman would yield.

Mr. SCALISE. It's really sad to see. The people out there are being responsible. Our people all across our districts are making those tough decisions, those responsible decisions to cut back. Our States are making those decisions. It seems here in Washington that the Federal Government is the only entity that doesn't seem to get it. Hopefully, before anything does pass, because we do still have time, we can turn this train around and get it back on track.

Mr. SCALISE. Absolutely.

Mr. SCALISE. I appreciate the gentleman from up north of the Mississippi River from my area in Missouri for yielding, and especially as you are talking about this latest effort that some people have to try to resuscitate Keynesian economics and reinvent history and try to make it out to be something it wasn't back when it was tried and failed decades ago. But if you really look around and you look at what the taxpayers, the people who ultimately are the shareholders who I think are fed up with this whole mad rush to have bailouts and deficit spending, and then see more, trillions of dollars added to our national debt, what the people across this country are doing during these tough economic times, I think that is really the true indication of the direction Congress should be going, and, unfortunately, Congress is going in a different direction. But people all across this country that are facing tough economic times, they are tightening their belts. They are making those tough decisions to live within their means.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. The elimination of section 211 is what I was referring to, and that's the section that even the Congressional Budget Office estimates, by removing that verification process, would open the door to about $5 billion of people who are illegal aliens now being eligible because that verification is taken away.