Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Scalise

Amendment No. 40: At the end of the bill (before the short

title) insert the following:

Sec. 542. None of the funds made available by this Act may

be used may be used to implement, administer, or enforce the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Enforcement

Guidance Number 915.002 concerning ``Consideration of arrest

and conviction records in employment decisions''.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Small Business Tax Cut. Louisiana alone will see 80,000 small businesses that will be able to benefit from this and over 890,000 workers that will benefit from this. Yet my colleagues on the Democrat side maybe think that it's their money. They don't want those small businesses to be able to keep it, and they think that Washington can spend it better than the small businesses.

How has that worked, by the way? They don't want small businesses to be able to keep some more of the hard-earned money that they make so they can invest it in their business. They'd rather keep it up here for critical Washington spending like the $535 million they blew on Solyndra, or maybe the $850,000 that Obama's GSA blew on the Vegas junkets. Those are the kind of things that they would rather see, and so they don't want those small businesses to be able to keep more of their hard-earned money. They want to keep taxing businesses. They've added over $1.9 trillion of new taxes in President Obama's own budget.

We've tried it their way. More than 2 million Americans have lost their jobs since President Obama took office. How about we actually try letting small businesses keep more of their hard-earned money so they can create good jobs for hardworking taxpayers?

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding and for bringing this legislation forward and, specifically, want to talk about title III of this bill, and that deals with the RESTORE Act.

Of course, this Friday will mark the 2-year anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. People all across the country saw for weeks and weeks oil coming into the Gulf of Mexico, destroying ecosystems, destroying economic industries. And yet, still to this day, there is no mechanism in place to dictate what should happen to those fines that BP and the other responsible parties will have to pay under the Clean Water Act.

In this component, the RESTORE Act actually sets that policy out. And it was the result of a compilation of work by Republicans and Democrats from all five Gulf Coast States who came together and recognized that the most responsible thing to do would be to dedicate that money, 80 percent of those fines, to the Gulf Coast States so that we actually have revenue to go and restore the damage that's been done.

I think most people recognize the right thing to do is to dedicate that money, not to send it up to Washington to be spent on things unrelated, but to actually allow us to restore the damage that was done in the Gulf of Mexico from that tragedy, and that's what this bill does.

The mechanism is in place, and as we go to a conference committee, I feel very confident we can get to a point where we have the full RESTORE Act in the final product so that there is no question that there is a commitment from this Congress that the Gulf Coast States ought to have the ability to restore the damage that was done during that tragedy.

Of course, another component of this bill is the Keystone pipeline. And I think as we look at the dilemma so many families are facing with escalating gas prices, the fact that you've got gas prices in some places already over $4 a gallon, experts predicting $5 a gallon gasoline, and here we have a friend in Canada saying that they want to send a million barrels a day of oil to America, which is a million barrels a day we don't have to get from these Middle Eastern countries who don't like us, sending billions of dollars to people, in essence, funding the enemy in some of these terrorist battles across the Middle East.

We've got the ability to create 20,000 jobs and secure our energy security. I look forward to passage of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from southwest Louisiana for bringing this amendment forward.

As a proud cosponsor of the RAMP Act, I support this legislation because what we're trying to say here is that you've got people that have been paying into this fund. This Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund has been there for years, and people have been paying into it, and the intention all along was that money would be used to dredge our waterways and to upgrade our locks and to keep our infrastructure along our waterways up to date so that we can continue moving commerce, not only throughout this country, but to be able to export and to be able to get commerce through to other countries. The Panama Canal is getting ready to come on line in 2013, and even deeper draft vessels are going to be coming through. That means we've got to be able to meet that demand, otherwise we're going to lose that business to foreign nations.

And yet here you have the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, and that money is not even being used for its intended purpose. We've got to ensure that the fund cannot be raided for other government spending. That's what this amendment does. It's something that will help us create jobs and increase the competitiveness of our workers, and it will keep that promise that has been made to those people who have been paying billions of dollars into this fund, and yet that fund hasn't been used properly.

I support the amendment and urge its passage.

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for bringing this amendment forward, this budget that implements what we would consider a balanced approach, and that's what we call cut, cap, and balance.

That's what's so important about this amendment, this budget that we bring forward with the RSC, is that, number one, the most important thing is we finally control the wasteful Washington spending that has added mountains and mountains of debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren, which is just immoral. It's wrong and surely not fair to send the bill for all this spending to our children and grandchildren and continue it on autopilot, as President Obama's budget did-- President Obama's budget, by the way, which got no votes. Not even one Democrat voted for the President's budget.

The contrast we bring here today is that in 5 years we will have a balanced budget under this amendment that's being brought forward. So we cut spending in areas where we've been needing to finally control spending like families are controlling spending back home.

When families deal with tough economic times, they've already done this. They tighten their belts and they make do with what they've got and they live within their means. And Washington has refused to do it. We finally put those fiscal constraints in Washington. But then we also put caps in place so that until we get to a balanced budget, there's a freeze on discretionary spending so that we're able to finally get to what is ultimately a balanced Federal budget in 5 years.

And we go further. Of course, we repeal ObamaCare, which is something that's been so devastating already to so many families that have lost the health care that they like, and so many other things like the tax increases that go with it--tax increases, by the way, which in many areas hit middle class families real hard. We abolish that.

We even go further. We save Medicare. President Obama's budget actually escalates Medicare's bankruptcy. In 12 years--and this, by the way, is from President Obama's own Medicare actuaries--Medicare goes bankrupt. They're willing to sit by and let that happen. We're not willing to do that. We're going to save Medicare. This budget does that, too. It has those reforms that Chairman Ryan brought forward that actually put Medicare back on a sustainable growth path.

And then we have commonsense tax reform that actually lowers overall rates.

This is a great budget that's been brought forward that's finally responsible to address our problems.

I appreciate the gentleman from South Carolina for bringing up this debate.

And this is the President's budget we're discussing. When you look at this resolution, this contains the same kind of language as any resolution that's brought to the floor contains. But let's talk about what it seems like some Members of the Democratic Party on the other side are so afraid to talk about, and that is what the President's budget really does.

The President's budget never even comes close to balancing, first of all. So this President, who campaigned 4 years ago on reducing the deficit, on trying to bring fiscal responsibility to Washington, goes the opposite way, adding trillions more dollars of debt, mountains of debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren.

What's worse, if you look at the policies, $1.9 trillion of job- killing tax increases. What does that mean to families? Hardworking families out there are looking at this, and they're knowing just what this is going to do to jobs in this country when you add another $1.9 trillion.

Just look at one part. They love bragging about all the taxes they're raising on American oil. In fact, their budget, President Obama's budget that we're talking about right now, President Obama's budget adds $40 billion a year in new taxes on American energy. The irony is the President's tax increase on American energy doesn't apply to OPEC nations, so OPEC countries are now incentivized to send more oil here. But if you make it in America--it's in the President's budget, go look at it--$40 billion of new tax increases if you make it in America. What is that going to do to gas prices that are already skyrocketing under President Obama's policies?

American families out there know what that means. If you add $40 billion a year in new taxes on American-made energy, that will only increase the price that is already too high. What's worse is that it kills American jobs because it says--and President Obama said this; in his budget President Obama says, if you're OPEC and you're sending us oil, we're not going to raise your taxes in the President's budget. But if you make energy in America, he'll raise taxes $40 billion a year.

This is the most warped policy I've ever seen. I hope we reject it, and then take up the budget that we're going to present that actually puts us in balance and has good, sound policy to create jobs.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, the bill that we're bringing to the floor today to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board, this group of 15 unelected bureaucrats here in Washington, D.C., that, under the President's health care law, would be able to ration care for our Nation's seniors.

I think most hardworking American families out there would much rather the decisions on health care to be made between a patient and a doctor, not some unelected bureaucrats to be allowed to ration our grandmother's care. So that's why we're repealing this law. Hopefully, it's going to be sent over to the Senate, and we'll finally be able to get some good bipartisan support over there.

As part of this reform, we are also not just repealing, we're replacing with real commonsense medical liability reform. This is something that should have been in the President's law, but of course his law wasn't about reform; it was about a government takeover. We are actually putting in place legislation that would put commonsense medical liability reform in place.

According to the Harvard School of Public Health, 40 percent of medical malpractice suits filed in the United States are ``without merit.'' Well, what does that do? That dramatically increases the cost of health care because so many doctors out there will tell you that many of the tests they run on us are not because of our health, to look at health outcomes; it's to avoid frivolous lawsuits. We finally addressed that, lowering the costs and improving quality of care.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As we approach the 2-year anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, my amendment sets up the Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund and requires that 80 percent of the Clean Water Act fines will be directed to the fund for the purposes of restoring the ecosystems and economies that were directly impacted by the oil spill.

This amendment shares strong bipartisan support and is the first step in ensuring that the Gulf Coast States have the ability to recover from the largest environmental disaster in our country's history.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

With that, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Hastings, for his support and help on this.

Despite the gentlelady from Florida's comments, the RESTORE Act actually has a broad range of support, not only from over 30 Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, but also from numerous outside groups, both on the environmental side and on the business side.

I will include in the Record all of these letters from various business and environmental groups in support of the RESTORE Act.

This amendment is a crucial first step towards ensuring that 80 percent of the BP Clean Water Act fines will be dedicated to help Gulf Coast States, and especially our fragile ecosystems along coastal Louisiana, to fully recover from the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

Just the other day, parish president Billy Nungesser from Plaquemines Parish brought me these pictures that were taken just 2\1/2\ weeks ago from south Plaquemines' inner marsh where you can still see clearly dead turtles and oil in the marsh. We're going to be dealing with these impacts for years to come, Mr. Chairman, and we've seen from other disasters that the proper way to do this is by setting aside those funds to make sure that BP, the responsible parties, not the Federal Government, pay to restore that damage.

The Associated General

Contractors of America,

Arlington, VA, October 17, 2011.

Re H.R. 3096, the Gulf Coast Restoration Act.

The Hon. Steve Scalise,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Scalise: The Associated General

Contractors of America (AGC) would like to thank you for

supporting the recovery of the Gulf Coast region by

introducing H.R. 3096, the Gulf Coast Restoration Act. This

legislation will ensure that the penalties the federal

government is owed are distributed in the best interest of

the coastal communities.

Under current law, the penalties acquired from BP and other

responsible parties would go into the U.S. Treasury and the

needed Gulf Coast restoration would receive no direct relief

from these penalties. This legislation would ensure the vast

majority of all civil penalties paid by BP or any other

responsible party in connection with the Deepwater Horizon

spill would be divided among the five Gulf Coast states most

impacted by the spill.

AGC is encouraged this legislation would promote the long-

term ecological and economic recovery of the Gulf Coast

region through the funding of infrastructure projects,

including coastal flood protection, directly affected by

coastal wetland losses, beach erosion, or the impacts of the

Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

Once again, thank you for your efforts to address the

environmental and economic impacts of the Deepwater Horizon

oil spill, by providing recovery hinds to ensure the

restoration of the natural resources in the Gulf Coast

region.

Sincerely,

Marco A. Giamberardino,

Senior Director, Federal and

Heavy Construction Division.

I thank my friend, the gentleman from Colorado, for yielding and for taking the lead on this hour dedicated to standing up for religious freedom.

I also thank my colleague from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) for his leadership and for bringing forth legislation, of which I am a proud cosponsor, that would repeal the decision that President Obama came down with that is an attack on religious freedom.

As a Catholic who attends church, it's rare when you see a Catholic priest talking from the pulpit, calling on the parishioners to call Congress, to contact Congress about any issue. Yet I want to applaud the Catholic bishops who have been so vocal in helping bring this issue to light, for standing up and saying, This is something that we will not comply with because it violates our own religious beliefs.

The beauty of the Constitution--and especially when you look at the Bill of Rights--are the rights that it lays out to all Americans. And when you read that First Amendment, there is a reason why freedom of religion is included in the First Amendment placed in the Bill of Rights, because our Founders believed it was a right that was handed down to us from God through our Founding Fathers and that it was given to all American citizens.

But yet the President came out with this ruling, and he says, Well, we'll tailor a little exemption just for places of worship. Not religious organizations, just places of worship. And everybody else, they're on their own. They've got religious beliefs that--they don't want to have to pay for abortion-inducing drugs, for example, which the President mandated. Then the President basically said, No, you have to do this, even if it violates your religious beliefs. That violates the First Amendment of the Constitution. It violates the Bill of Rights. No President has the ability to violate the Bill of Rights, those constitutional rights we have.

And then the President, just a few days ago, came out with what he called ``an accommodation,'' an accommodation where he said, Okay, we'll carve out a little more exception. It still doesn't apply to an employer, for example, that has those same religious beliefs, so we'll carve out an exemption.

Well, guess what? After the President carved out that exemption, so to speak, they actually issued a final rule. This is the final rule from the Obama administration after he gave a press conference, a political speech. And in the final rule, it says, ``These regulations finalize, without change, interim final regulations.'' In other words, they didn't even put any of the things from the President's press conference where he said he was going to give accommodations. None of that is in the final rule.

The final rule still says, if you're a Catholic school, for example, or a Catholic Church--and I know Colorado Christian University is one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit because they would face a $500,000 fine under this rule. Even if the President gave a press conference, you can't go to court and say, Look, I'm not going to comply with this rule, because they're going to say, Well, you have to comply; it's the law. And they will say, Oh, but the President gave a speech saying I don't have to. It's still in the rule.

Again, any President who thinks that he has the power to issue accommodations to the Bill of Rights is a President who thinks he's got the ability to take away that Bill of Rights. He doesn't have that. And that's why I'm so proud to stand here with my colleague from Colorado and so many others that have stood up and said, we are going to stand up and defend those religious freedoms that are so precious, not just for religious organizations, but for all Americans, as is called for in the Bill of Rights. So it's an important issue that we need to keep fighting for because this is all a component of the President's health care law.

I remember back in those days when the President stood right here on this House floor at that podium and he looked at all Members of Congress and he said, If you like what you have, you can keep it. Do you remember that? All Americans heard that. Time and time again, the President said, If you like the health insurance you have, you can keep it. Guess what: With this ruling, he broke that promise he made to the American people because if you're a religious organization and you like the fact that you don't have to provide--and you are not going to provide--abortion-inducing drugs because it violates your own conscience, the President is now saying, You can't keep it. You have to abide by my ruling. That goes against the will. And if you are a religious organization that is self-insured, they're left out of this too.

There are so many problems with this. I'm glad that they're fighting it in the courts. But the bottom line is, they shouldn't have to go to the court to defend the First Amendment. That should be something that's sacrosanct. The President shouldn't be trying to violate and attack our religious freedoms.

I appreciate the gentleman for his leadership tonight.

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

I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.

Let's look at President Obama's record after his first 3 years. President Obama has left us a record of debt, despair, and downgrades, and here we are today debating whether or not President Obama is able to go grab another $1.2 trillion that he adds to the debt of our Nation that our children and grandchildren are going to have to pay.

The reason we were downgraded is because President Obama himself has still refused to put a plan forward to balance the Federal budget, his budget that he purported and pushed forth doubles the national debt in his first 5 years. And then, of course, he becomes the first President in the history of our Nation to have our debt rating, the debt rating of the United States, downgraded.

You know, you look at the despair as Americans are trying to get jobs. We're getting reports today that President Obama is going to reject the Keystone pipeline, turning his back on 20,000 American families who were looking for those good jobs here in America, making us more dependent on Middle Eastern countries who don't like us.

You know, the Canadians, who are a good friend of ours, wanted to send oil down to America. That's oil we don't have to be buying from Middle Eastern countries. Instead, the President is going to, as we're hearing reports of today, is going to turn his back on those 20,000 jobs. And he's going to send that oil and those jobs to China.

Now how preposterous is that? As the President is trying to rack up more debt on the Nation's credit card, which we're debating here today, at the same time he's turning his back and running 20,000 more jobs out of this country. That's the record of this administration. That's what President Obama has given us, and you wonder why we've had over 8 percent unemployment for almost every single month he's been President.

We can't afford the Obama economy. It's time for a change. We need to reject this increase in the debt ceiling. Stop spending money that we don't have.

Mr. Speaker, you are going to be hearing a lot, and we're all going to be talking a lot, about the Keystone pipeline. And the reason that we're talking a lot about it is that between now and February 21, President Obama has a decision to make. President Obama has been tasked by this Congress to make a decision by February 21 on whether or not to approve the Keystone pipeline.

Now, the President, frankly, should have approved this project months ago when, back in August, the State Department, which was tasked by the President to make a recommendation, was getting ready to actually make a recommendation to move forward on

the Keystone pipeline. And of course what we're talking about is creating jobs in America. There will be 20,000 American jobs created if the President moves forward with the Keystone pipeline. But also American energy security is at stake here.

The President has continued to punt this issue. In fact, just a few months ago, the President tried to push this issue off until after the election. Just right after the State Department was getting ready to say, Let's go forward with the Keystone pipeline, all of a sudden, some of the radical environmental groups came forward. And these radical environmental groups, who are against any form of American-created energy that doesn't involve wind and solar power--whether it's oil, gas, nuclear--they're against all American energy.

So these radical environmental groups went and had a protest over at the White House. And they intimidated this President enough to where President Obama said, okay, he's going to push it off until after the election, thinking that he could just hide behind radical environmentalists and say, Oh, well, we've got to look at the environmental issues.

Well, this has nothing to do with whether or not it's good for the environment because, frankly, the State Department looked at the environmental issues already. President Obama knows that. The State Department looked at these environmental concerns and said they're not there. In fact, if the President approved Keystone tomorrow and said yes to those American jobs, the Canadian Government and the company that would be building the pipeline would still have to comply with the environmental laws of every single State that that pipeline would go through.

So it's not a question of whether or not Keystone would comply with the environmental laws. They have to comply with all the environmental laws. But what is at stake is whether or not we're going to take these 20,000 jobs in America or whether those jobs are going to be shipped to China because China's already said that they want the Keystone oil, they want the oil that would be created by these oil sands in Canada.

So the question is, Are we going to have that oil from Canada sent into America, or is that oil going to go to China? And of course what that really means is, Are we going to take the 20,000 jobs in America, or is President Obama going to send those 20,000 jobs to China? What does President Obama have against the creation of 20,000 American jobs?

The President loves to give all these speeches, talking about the middle class. And, Mr. Speaker, when the President talks about the middle class, he can't say that he supports the middle class if he rejects the Keystone pipeline because he'll be turning down 20,000 American jobs that will be coming down with over $7 billion of private investment that's coming from one of our best partners in the world, Canada. Canada is a great trading partner with America.

If the Keystone pipeline is built in America and we start partnering with and taking about 700,000 barrels a day of oil from Canada, that's oil that we don't have to get from Middle Eastern countries who don't like us. So look at the policy. First of all, if they do this, they have to comply with the environmental laws not only in the United States but in every State that it goes through. So the environmental issues don't exist that the President raises.

But what is at stake is whether or not we are going to get 20,000 American jobs and whether or not we're going to get oil from our friend Canada or are we going to get oil from Middle Eastern countries who don't like us. So that is what this debate is about.

Between now and February 21, the President has got to decide whether or not he's going to say yes to American jobs or is he going to side with his radical environmentalist friends who went over to the White House and threatened him and all of this kind of foolishness and said that they want to send that oil to China.

The good news is that the President doesn't really have to decide whether or not that's going to happen because he can just go look at what his own State Department said. The State Department said that they think those jobs should stay in America. But the President has got to decide whether he is going to side with the radical environmentalists or whether he's going to side with American families and workers who just want jobs and want American energy security.

And, frankly, if we've got a choice--because our demand for oil hasn't gone down--it's a question of whether or not we want oil from Canada who's a friend or from Middle Eastern countries who are not and if we want to create 20,000 American jobs. So that is what is at stake between now and February 21.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge, first of all, the President to side with America in the creation of 20,000 jobs and to approve the Keystone pipeline.

I yield to the gentlelady from Tennessee.

The gentlelady from Tennessee is correct. In fact, when you look at the timeline for Keystone--as you said, it's been 40 months. And the thing here is that the State Department has done the review. The President right now is trying to give some indication that now February 21 might not be enough time for him when, in fact, he's had much longer than the normal process for any review. But he's also got the approval from the State Department because there is one other big factor here. There is also the fact that China is out there saying they want the oil. So as America, through President Obama, is saying that he doesn't want to do it or he wants to delay it until after the election, where Canada has indicated they can't wait until after the election in November, they've got to make a decision. And they want to send the oil to the United States of America because we're great trading partners.

But if President Obama keeps saying no, China right now is saying they want the oil. So we don't have an unlimited amount of time for the President to keep kowtowing to his radical environmentalist friends and try to kick the can down the road. A decision needs to be made; and February 21 is that date that's currently available, and we're trying to push the President to make that decision in the affirmative way and say yes to those 20,000 jobs that would be created here.

With that, I will be happy to yield to the gentlelady from Tennessee.

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

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding.

What we're talking about here today, Mr. Speaker, is the difference between passing a tax policy that would only last 2 months or passing a tax policy that lasts the entire year. During this next week and a half, while families are sitting at home doing their budget for next year, they're going to be making their budget for the entire year 2012, not for just 2 months. And yet what the Senate sent over is a plan that only kicks the can down road, and we'd be right back here again having this same debate in 2 months.

People are sick and tired of this kind of absurd action from Congress. If you look at early civics courses, anybody that takes their first civics course knows that when there's a difference between the House and the Senate--as there is here--then the two sides appoint conferees, they get together and they work out those differences. That's what the legislative process is about. And clearly we have a difference.

We think the policy should be for an entire year, as even the President has said, and the Senate sent us over a 2-month patch that doesn't even fix the problem. In fact, outside groups like the National Federation of Independent Businesses said this would hurt small businesses. And yet what do we get from the other side? Minority Leader Pelosi, Mr. Speaker, said she will not appoint any House Democrats to participate in the negotiations. She just said this last night. So in the spirit of Christmas, you've got the minority leader saying she's just going to take her toys and go home. That's not the responsible thing to do.

Let's stay here, let's get the policy right, let's do our work, and let's have the Senate do their work, too, for the American people.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding.

I think one of the strongest components of this bill that we're bringing to the floor today is the jobs component that's contained in the Keystone pipeline bill.

If you'll look at what we're trying to do right now, we've got some options here. The American people are clamoring for jobs. We've got the ability to force President Obama to get off the sidelines. The President has been good about running all around the country, giving these political speeches and campaigning. He's talking about jobs, and he's talking about the middle class. Yet here we have an opportunity to create 20,000 middle class jobs in America, and the President is saying ``no.'' The President said he'll veto the bill over this one provision.

Now, think about that. There is a bill that deals with unemployment benefits, and the President is saying he'd rather people be unemployed than to actually get jobs. They would much rather have jobs than be unemployed. Yet there is the ability to create 20,000 American jobs with the Keystone pipeline, and the President is turning his back on those middle class families.

There is over $7 billion of private investment. We can increase America's energy security. If that oil comes from Canada, our dependence on Middle Eastern oil can drop dramatically. We can eliminate a million barrels a day when this comes online, and we can reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

Let's create American jobs. What does President Obama have against 20,000 American jobs? I urge a ``yes'' vote.

I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding me this time to speak about this important issue. I really want to thank him for bringing this to the floor because this is one of those rare bipartisan pieces of legislation that Congress brings forward that is so critical to the future of our country. You know, a balanced budget amendment is an idea that is long overdue.

If you look at where we are right now, some of the biggest challenges facing our country come from the fact that Washington continues to spend money it doesn't have. This Nation just passed the $15 trillion threshold in debt. Just in the last 2\1/2\ years since President Obama has been in office, another $5 trillion, mountains of debt that have been added to the backs of our children and grandchildren. It is irresponsible to keep dumping this debt onto future generations. It hurts America's ability to grow, it holds America's promise back, and it has got to stop.

If you look at what is important about this debate, a balanced budget amendment will finally bring permanent accountability and force Washington to start living within its means, to tell Washington you can't keep spending money you don't have. And yet you listen to this debate and there are Republicans and Democrats supporting this concept that's long overdue to require a balanced Federal budget; but, of course, there are opponents as well. If you listen to what some of the opponents have been saying, they call it reckless. Forty-nine States do this, families all across the country balance their budget, and they call it reckless to live within our means.

What I would finally say in conclusion is that we have got to put these reins on Washington spending. We've got to give this promise to the next generation. Stop playing politics. Let's pass this amendment.

I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding and especially for his leadership in bringing the Protect Life Act to the floor of the House of Representatives.

When we look at a time right now when our country is going broke, it's offensive to most Americans that taxpayer money can still be used to subsidize abortion in this country. We had this debate during the President's health care law. We've tried to put real language that would protect that from happening. Unfortunately, we weren't able to get that protection. For those of us that want to repeal the President's health care law completely, we've already passed that bill and sent it to the Senate and they've taken no action.

But we're here today to address specifically this problem and say there should be no taxpayer money that is allowed to be used to subsidize abortion. And if you look in the bill, there are employers out there who are providing good health care to their employees today; yet under the law that the President passed and signed into law, Federal officials can tell those private employers that they have to provide abortion services in their policy, and so they'll just drop the policy. This prevents that from happening as well. It gives conscience protections so that if there's a medical professional that doesn't want to participate in abortion, they don't have to.

These are all commonsense proposals that should pass and have bipartisan support, and they should also pass the Senate.