Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 69.

I want to congratulate the gentleman from California on his leadership on this bill, building a bipartisan coalition to bring it to the floor under suspension. I want to recognize the 23.6 million Americans that suffer from diabetes. Diabetes can lead to serious complications and premature death, but people with diabetes can take steps to control the disease and lower the risk of complications.

The Centers for Disease Control has stated that progression to diabetes among those with pre-diabetes is not inevitable and that studies have shown that people with pre-diabetes who lose weight and increase their physical activity can prevent or delay diabetes and return their blood glucose levels to normal. Through regular exercise and a steady diet, Americans can get to a healthier state of living and avoid diabetes, and that's what we're trying to raise awareness about.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).

I yield 2 additional minutes to the gentleman from Georgia.

It's important that we continue working to find the causes and the treatments, education, and make sure that we are researching properly to find cures for diseases like diabetes.

The broader question of health care reform--I think my friend from Georgia did a really good job of talking about the challenges and the concerns that so many over on this side have of this proposal that's before us. Not here in this bill, but being debated here in this Congress in these coming weeks, this week, last week, this proposal to have a government takeover of our health care system.

I think it shows that while there are definitely ways to approach this in a bipartisan fashion, where there are many areas of health care reform that many of us agree need to be made to improve outcomes, to improve access, to focus on that narrow group of people who don't have access to care.

I think the real danger is going down the road of a government takeover where government literally is interfering in the relationship between a doctor and their patient, as this bill would do, the bill that's been filed by the administration, by some of the members of this Democratic leadership.

I think there's real problems, and we can only look at the neighbors that have gone down the same road. Look at Canada. Canada has a government-run health care system. Many people with the means from Canada come to America to get good care. The same thing in England.

There was a tragic story in England, which has a government-run system. Just yesterday, there was a young man, a 22-year-old, who died because he was not allowed to get a liver transplant. ``He did not qualify for a donor liver under strict NHS rules.'' His own mother said, ``These rules are really unfair.''

They have a government-run system that's very similar to the proposal that's being pushed by the President to have this government takeover of health care.

We actually had an amendment in committee last night in the Energy and Commerce Committee that would have prohibited a government-run system from having a bureaucrat interfere in the relationship between a patient and their doctor. Unfortunately, our amendment was defeated.

So clearly it shows that a government-run system would allow a doctor-patient relationship to be interfered with by a government bureaucrat here in Washington. That's not health care reform. That's rationing of health care.

So we need to, hopefully, go back to the table and have a true bipartisan debate because there are many proposals that are on the table, bills that have been filed--I'm cosponsor of a number of them that actually address some of the problems that exist in health care-- to allow companies to pool together so they can get the same buying power as a small business, as a large business does; to allow individuals to buy insurance across State lines so they don't have to rely on their employer if they don't like their employer's plan; and then also open up and address those areas of waste, fraud, and abuse that exist. That's what we're concerned about.

I do think it's very important that we raise awareness and education for diseases like diabetes. And I do want again to thank the gentleman with the ``good arm'' from California for his leadership on this issue because he has, I think, taken this issue and approached it in a good bipartisan way. Hopefully, we can do the same with the broader area of health care reform.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I want to thank my friend from Pennsylvania for yielding me time, Mr. Speaker. As we're talking about the Bureau of Labor Statistics, it's an interesting period in our country's history because, just in the last few months since President Obama's taken office, our country has lost 2 million more jobs; 2 million more Americans are out of work, are part of those statistics. I think it's much more than statistics. It's policies by this administration that have caused those 2 million Americans to lose their jobs since January.

If you go back to the stimulus bill, that was the bill that was touted at stopping the bleeding. All of us on this side that opposed that bill, that opposed spending $800 billion of money that we don't have, said back then that that bill would actually make matters worse because it was adding mountains of debt to our children and grandchildren, but also it wasn't addressing the problems in our economy.

In fact, now we're seeing unemployment at 9.5 percent, approaching 10 percent, with 2 million more Americans having lost their jobs since President Obama took office. And what's this administration saying? Are they finally admitting that the stimulus was a failure? No. In fact, some in the White House are calling for another stimulus bill, more spending.

In fact, just last week at a convention of the AARP, Vice President Joe Biden said, ``We have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt.'' Those are words the Vice President actually said just last week.

And so as this mountain of debt is piling up on the backs of our children and grandchildren, as the President is running car companies and running banks and running all of these other institutions--with over 30 czars, and it's not working--their own Vice President is saying they need to spend money to keep from going bankrupt.

These are ludicrous policies. We have got to go back to common sense. We've got to go back to fiscal discipline and start balancing our budget like every other State is dealing with their budgets, like American families are dealing with these tough economic times as they're pulling back and living within their own means. It's the Federal Government here in Washington that seems to be out of control on a spending frenzy.

Then, just a few weeks ago, they brought this cap-and-trade national energy tax, where they're literally proposing a policy that would run millions more American jobs out of this country to places like China and India, where they'll actually emit more carbon than we do here in America to do the same thing, while rising utility rates on every American family.

The President's own budget director said that the cap-and-trade energy tax would add another $1,200 a year to every American family's utility bills. So, as they're thinking about turning on their air conditioner in the summer, they're going to be thinking about whether or not they will pay these higher electricity rates.

These policies are helping lead to this rapid unemployment that is now approaching double digits. And the latest here we have in front of us in Congress is this debate over the President and Speaker Pelosi and others' proposal to have a government takeover of our health care system, where the estimates are that we would have hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes, over $580 billion in new taxes on the backs of small businesses.

You would have $240 billion in fines in their approach on the backs of American families, including--get this. This is according to the Congressional Budget Office. In the President's takeover, proposal to take over the health care system by the government, they have $29 million in penalties against people who are uninsured. It's in the bill.

They have the ability for this health care czar--a health care czar that would literally be able to tell Americans whether or not they can see a doctor and which doctor they can see. It actually gives the authority to this bureaucrat in Washington to disqualify a company's entire health benefits plan.

So if you like the health care you have, the health care czar in their bill allows the health care czar to take your health care benefits away.

I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

If you look at these policies--and the American people out there across the country are looking at these policies, and that's a good thing because as they look at these policies, and they hear the leadership here in Washington, the people running Congress, saying they need to ram these policies through before the next 2 weeks are over, I think people are figuring it out. They're saying, Wait a minute.

Many Members who actually voted for that cap-and-trade energy tax didn't even read the bill because they dropped 300 pages of amendments down the day of the vote. And we know they're going to try to do the same thing again on this government takeover of health care, and people are sick and tired of it. People are finally saying, Enough is enough; control spending and these czars; stop running car companies; stop running banks; and, surely, don't try to have some government bureaucrat take over our health care system.

So hopefully we won't add millions more Americans to these statistics that we're talking about today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on Congressionally-directed project funding, I am submitting the following information regarding project funding I requested for Southeast Louisiana as part of the Fiscal Year 2010 Energy and Water Appropriations Act.

Requesting Member: Congressman Steve Scalise

Bill Number: Fiscal Year 2010 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill

Account: Corps of Engineers, Section 107

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Port of New Orleans

Address of Requesting Entity: 1350 Port of New Orleans Place, New Orleans, LA 70130

Description of Request: I have secured $100,000 for the Port of New Orleans. This will be a good use of taxpayer dollars because the authorized dredging and maintenance project would provide a minimum 45- foot draft access at the Napoleon Avenue Container Terminal in the Port of New Orleans to enable terminal use by deep draft ships and to allow the Port to remain competitive in attracting and retaining international business. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on Congressionally-directed project funding, I am submitting the following information regarding project funding I requested for Southeast Louisiana as part of the Fiscal Year 2010 Financial Services Appropriations Act.

Requesting Member: Congressman Steve Scalise

Bill Number: Fiscal Year 2010 Financial Services Appropriations

Bill Account: Small Business Administration, Salaries and Expenses

Name of Requesting Entity: West Jefferson Medical Center

Address of Requesting Entity: 1101 Medical Center Boulevard, Marrero,

Mr. Speaker, today in the Energy and Commerce Committee we started having hearings on President Obama and Speaker Pelosi's bill, the proposal to create a government takeover of our health care system. I think the components of this bill and some of the things that have been talked about need to be discussed here on this House floor because the bill itself will actually lead to rationing of health care for Americans across this country. The bill will absolutely raise taxes on every American in this country and every small business in this country. In fact, there are over $580 billion in new taxes in this bill. This bill was just filed earlier this week. The Congressional Budget Office hasn't even been able to do a full assessment of it. There was a meeting held yesterday in the Energy and Commerce Committee with the CBO. Unfortunately the chairman decided that that meeting would be held in secret. He did not allow the media to come in. He didn't allow the public to have access through the Internet or through television to see what the head of the CBO had to say. You know, maybe if somebody supports this government takeover, I can see why they might want to try to hide the details from the public because the details that start to come out are showing the true cost to the American people and the true dangers of going into this government takeover of our health care system. I think the people ought to know what those details are. I think when you're talking about a bill this massive, a bill that is so enormous, probably one of the biggest transformations of government--and in an administration that has had many, many attempts to try to take over different aspects of our lives, this may be the biggest one.

We have a chart right here that we've put together which actually shows the organizational structure of this new government takeover. If government is allowed to take over the health care system based on the bill that President Obama and the Speaker and her top lieutenants in this House and in the Senate have filed, this is the structure of what government-run health care would look like.

There are a number of points that I think are important to go through. You hear President Obama talking a lot about, if you have the health care you like, you get to keep it. Now that sounds great. I agree with that. The problem is, the bill that President Obama and Speaker Pelosi and others filed takes away your health care. It allows a government czar--and unfortunately they've created so many czars. The government is running the insurance companies. The government is running banks right now. The government is running car companies. And the government is not doing a real good job of it. And now the government wants to run the health care system in this country. If you look at this organizational chart, you will see a whole lot of Federal agencies interfering in the relationship between a patient and their doctor.

Now these are the people that are saying that the government won't tell you when you can go see your doctor. Everywhere in this organizational chart and everywhere in their thousand-plus page bill they're giving this new health care czar the ability and the power to interfere between the relationship of a patient and their doctor. If you like the health care plan you have, there's actual language in this bill that allows this health care czar that's created, it gives this government bureaucrat in Washington the power to tell your company, if you like your health care, the government can now take away, literally disqualify your company's health care plan from being eligible and force you onto this government-run plan. They have taxes that cover all different aspects of life. They tax businesses, $583 billion in taxes on working people in this country. There's actually--and this was verified yesterday by the Congressional Budget Office--$29 billion in new taxes on uninsured people. Now the real irony of that is, the real reason that they're bringing this bill--over 300 million Americans participate in health care today, and there is a number of uninsured people. Some people say the number is 45 million. Others have narrowed it down, when you remove the illegal aliens, when you remove people that just choose not to get health care who are eligible, the real number of uninsured people has been honed down to about 7 million people, and that's a number we should go address. Health care needs to be reformed, and there are a lot of bipartisan approaches to reform that system. But you reform something that's broke. You don't blow up the whole system that's working.

In America we've got probably the best medical care in the world. People who have government-run systems, like Canada, like England, the citizens that have the means actually come to America to get care because our system is so good, even with the flaws. So let's go address those flaws. But you don't set up a system like this, some Byzantine system of bureaucrats and czars that are going to tell you which doctor you can see, to take over our health care system. Unfortunately we have got a debate started; and hopefully the public gets involved in this because when you look at the taxes, literally $29 billion of taxes on uninsured people when the bill was supposed to be designed to address the uninsured. When you look at small businesses and the impact on small businesses and middle-class families, in the bill they literally allow taxes on people making less than $50,000. This is a bill that needs important debate. Hopefully people will look at the details, and we can defeat it.

I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in opposition to this rule because 80 percent of the amendments that were brought forward on this bill were not allowed under this rule. And so clearly we are not operating under a transparent process. We are not operating under a process that is allowing the free debate that I think all Americans want us to have on appropriations bills that spend their money.

First, there were some amendments that were brought forward that would have actually directed the Corps of Engineers to base their flood protection decisions on the most safe options to protect our citizens and their property from future storms. That amendment was not allowed under this rule. There was actually an amendment to cut, and I know it is a word that some people don't like over in this building, to cut spending by $7 billion based on the amount of money that was added in the stimulus bill.

I think many of us, on this side for sure, and I would hope some of my colleagues on the other side, would even acknowledge that the President's stimulus bill was a failed spending bill, $800 billion of new government spending at a time when our economy is hurting. And now even the Vice President acknowledges they misread the economy.

Everybody I think that has looked at it objectively acknowledges the spending bill was a bad idea. Those of us who voted against it said it would be a bad idea and hurt the economy then. That is why we proposed an alternative. Yet this steamroller to just continue spending money out of control went on, and they passed the bill.

There was an amendment that was proposed that would have cut that $7 billion in this Department that went through the stimulus bill that clearly isn't working. Instead of controlling the spending and allowing a vote on that, that was ruled out of order under this rule.

All of us that have looked and said, where are the jobs from the spending bill, that stimulus bill, no one can point to the jobs, because we have lost jobs. Since President Obama took office, 2 million more Americans have lost their job. And what is their answer? You would think their answer would be, Maybe some of those Republicans that had some alternative ideas might have been right; we will actually work in a bipartisan way and go talk to them and see what their ideas were because they were good ideas that would have helped small businesses and helped American families get back on

their feet. Instead, these ideas were discarded. Maybe they would go back and look at those ideas again.

Instead, some people in the White House are actually suggesting a second stimulus bill, yet another massive spending bill at a time when the spending is what is hurting our economy. And so we bring an amendment to cut spending, and they rule it out of order in this rule.

Maybe Speaker Pelosi and some of her liberal lieutenants think that the American people aren't watching, and maybe they are high-fiving because they are hoodwinking people into not knowing what is going on here in this House.

But I hate to tell them, the American people are watching, and they don't like what they see. They see massive runaway spending. They see more jobs being lost. They see this energy bill, this cap-and-trade energy tax that would run millions of jobs to countries like China, causing more Americans to be unemployed and raising utility rates on every American family.

The American people are watching this. And they are demanding action from Congress. That is why we are bringing these amendments to cut the spending.

I want to thank my friend from Florida again. That is why we are bringing these amendments. We are bringing constructive ideas to solve the problems of our country and to propose different approaches, not massive spending, but actually ways to get Americans back employed, ways to help small businesses survive during these tough times, ways to help middle class families who are struggling to get back on their feet. And every time we bring these proposals, the liberal leadership on the other side says, no, we don't want to hear those alternative ideas; we want to just keep spending money like there is no end in sight.

Well, there is an end in sight. And if you look just earlier this week, we reached a hurdle that I don't think is a good hurdle, I don't think anyone should be proud of, but it is a historic hurdle. Earlier this week, our country exceeded $1 trillion in deficits during the course of a fiscal year. It was already exceeded this week, and we still have months to go in the fiscal year.

So this is going to have a devastating effect on our economy, this massive runaway spending. And yet they bring a rule that closes debate on 80 percent of amendments.

I would urge rejection of this rule.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the deficit for this year exceeded $1 trillion, just in this year. In fact, since President Obama has taken office, more than 2 million Americans have lost their jobs. And now with that backdrop, what is this administration talking about? First of all, the President is going around saying, The stimulus bill has done its job and is working exactly as we anticipated. Did they anticipate a bill that would cost $800 billion in money we don't have and now 2 million more Americans losing their jobs?

It is time we get this right. While the White House is talking about even another stimulus bill, the American people are saying enough is enough. Stop the spending, the borrowing and the taxing and let's get Americans back to work. Let's actually provide that relief to small businesses and average American families that we, on the Republican side, proposed and President Obama didn't even want to look at.

It's time to bring bipartisanship and real solutions to this problem that is facing our country instead of that tired old adage of spending and spending and borrowing and now taxing with this cap-and-trade and this health care government takeover. We have got to get back on track.

Well, I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri and all of my colleagues who have been talking tonight.

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

I yield back.

It has got a heavy carbon footprint.

I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding.

I appreciate the comments from my friend from Arizona and his alternative bill. I serve on the Energy and Commerce Committee as well. We're going to have a heated debate, a very necessary and important debate. But this should be a debate that allows all of these different ideas and facts to come out.

But there is an old adage that says if you don't learn from the mistakes of history, you are doomed to repeat it. So I think if you go back to January and review the last 6 months and you look at the mistakes that have been made along the way and transpose that to the bill that was filed today, this government takeover of our health care system, you'll see a lot of similarities to the previous mistakes that's been made up until this point.

When the President came in in January, his first initiative was this massive so-called stimulus bill: $787 billion in spending, borrowed money that we don't have, money that's going to be borrowed against our future, China and other countries that will be loaning us this money. This bill was touted as a way to save the economy.

The President said we need to do this or else unemployment will reach 8 percent. Today as we stand here and review that bill, as my friend from Georgia said, where are the jobs? We know it hasn't created jobs. In fact, since President Obama took office, two million more Americans have lost their jobs. In the meantime, the stimulus

bill is starting to have effects on the economy, but now you are beginning to see the beginnings of inflation because of all of this borrowing.

You are also seeing the fact that this bill is clearly not working-- not only all of us who voted against the bill and proposed an alternative, and the President who vowed to be so bipartisan would not work with any Republicans to take some of the ideas that we had, ideas to actually empower Americans, to allow small businesses to hire people, to give tax relief to small businesses and families that are struggling out there. The President didn't want to approach any of those ideas. He just wanted this one-size-fits-all government-run program, spend more money, $800 billion.

And now just last week his own Vice President said this plan, they misread the economy. And the President himself is going around saying-- first he's saying that he wouldn't do anything differently on the stimulus bill and he said the stimulus bill is working according to plan.

Now, I'm not sure what plan he had, but two million more people out of work from the day he took office, unemployment approaching 10 percent, and he said that's the plan that's working.

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

Clearly he must have been because he and his own Vice President not only are saying that that bill, the stimulus bill, is working according to plan but they're saying on the other end, some people in the White House are saying they're so concerned now about the economy and the approaching 10 percent unemployment that they're talking about doing a second stimulus.

So people who are admitting on one hand they misread the economy, everyone's acknowledged that their stimulus plan isn't working and is spending money we don't have.

Then they're talking about doing another stimulus bill to spend even more money we don't have.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in opposition to this rule. This is a massive energy tax on the backs of the American people all across this country. All estimates show millions of jobs will be lost by this cap-and-trade energy tax.

Every household family will see an increase in their utility bills. And we brought amendments last night to protect American jobs. They ruled every one of those amendments out of order.

We brought amendments to protect American families having their utility bills increased. They ruled every one of those amendments out of order.

What is Speaker Pelosi and this liberal leadership trying to hide from the American people? We should have an open, honest debate on this bill. It's a bad bill and a bad rule. I urge rejection of the rule.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.

I stand here to strongly oppose this cap-and-trade national energy tax that is being proposed to be created here today.

One of the things we have heard is about jobs. Let's talk about jobs. The National Association of Manufacturers estimates the United States will lose 3 to 4 million jobs if this bill becomes law. The President's own budget director has said American families will see a $1,200 increase per year on their electricity bill if this bill becomes law. That is the policy that they are trying to pass. That is the policy we are standing up and opposing today.

Let's talk about job loss. If you look at the bill, they have 55 pages in this bill dedicated to job losses. Now why would they put 55 pages in the bill dedicated to job losses if they didn't think this was going to lose jobs and run those jobs over to China and India?

And the real irony is for those who think that we need to reduce carbon emissions, this bill will actually increase carbon emissions because when that steel mill moves from the United States to Brazil, four times more carbon is emitted to produce steel in Brazil than in the United States. And not only do we lose jobs, they emit more carbon. This is a horrible way to wreck the American economy. We need to defeat it.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on Congressionally-directed project funding, I am submitting the following information regarding project funding I requested for Southeast Louisiana as part of the Fiscal Year 2010 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

Requesting Member: Congressman Steve Scalise

Bill Number: Fiscal Year 2010 Interior and Environment Appropriations Bill

Account: Environmental Protection Agency--STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: St. Tammany Parish

Address of Requesting Entity: St. Tammany Parish, 21490 Koop Drive, Mandeville, LA 70471

Description of Request: I have secured $500,000 for St. Tammany Parish. This funding will be used to create an on-line retention pond at the western intersection of Bayou Chinchuba and U.S. Highway 59. This will reduce floodwater heights in order to reduce risk to homes, streets, highway flooding, and protect over 16,000 citizens in the Bayou Chinchuba area of St. Tammany Parish. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on Congressionally-directed project funding, I am submitting the following information regarding project funding I requested for Southeast Louisiana as part of the Fiscal Year 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations Act.

Requesting Member: Congressman Steve Scalise

Bill Number: Fiscal Year 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill

Account: Federal Emergency Management Agency, State and Local Programs

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: New Orleans Emergency Medical Services

Address of Requesting Entity: 1300 Perdido Street, Suite 4W07, New Orleans, LA 70112

Description of Request: I have secured $750,000 for the New Orleans Emergency Medical Services. The funding would be used to provide a permanent Emergency Operations Center and base of operation for the sole 9-1-1 emergency medical service provider for the city of New Orleans. Secure medication, equipment storage, and training areas are needed to better serve the citizens of New Orleans. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Requesting Member: Congressman Steve Scalise

Bill Number: Fiscal Year 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill

Account: Federal Emergency Management Agency, State and Local Programs

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Washington Parish Government

Address of Requesting Entity: 909 Pearl Street, Franklinton, LA 70438

Description of Request: I have secured $350,000 for the Washington Parish Government. The funding would be used to provide for an Emergency Operations/9-1-1 Multi-Agency Communications Center to coordinate electronic, telephone, satellite and radio communications between law enforcement, fire, EMS, hospitals, and Emergency Management Agencies. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

I thank my colleague from Alabama for yielding me time to speak.

I rise in opposition to this legislative appropriations bill. While I appreciate the work that's been done in putting this bill together, I think it's been a disservice to the American people that the amendments that were filed by so many Members on our side to actually cut the growth of spending in this bill were not allowed to come to the floor, were, in essence, ruled out of order. I think it's a sad day when someone attempts to cut spending in a bill that grows government by the size of 7 percent, in this case, and it is ruled out of order. It's not allowed to be debated on this House floor. I think what's happening right now--and we saw this yesterday--there was a $64 billion piece of legislation that was brought before Congress yesterday, which represented a 12 percent growth--the CJS budget that was brought before Congress yesterday--a 12 percent growth in government at a time when Americans all across the country are cutting their spending because we're living in tough economic times.

I think there's some people in this leadership in Congress that just don't get the fact that people want us to cut spending here in Washington, not spend at record levels.

I think it was very sad when just on this House floor yesterday we had a record--8 hours was spent on a bill where $64 billion of taxpayer money was being spent, and we were trying to bring up amendments to cut that rapid growth in spending. People just last night and today in the leadership on this floor actually used the comments that ``delaying tactics''--they called our amendments to cut spending delaying tactics. Some of their Members actually used the term ``nonsense'' and ``foolishness'' when describing our amendments to cut spending. So now some people on the other side want to spend money so fast that if we put up an amendment to cut spending, to cut growth in spending, they call that a delaying tactic.

Well, I think Americans all across this country want more of those types of delaying tactics to slow down this runaway train of massive Federal spending, money we don't have. Every dollar we spend in Congress from today all the way through the end of this year is borrowed money. We don't have that money. We need to control what we're spending. I would urge opposition to this bill.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on Congressionally-directed project funding, I am submitting the following information regarding project funding I requested for Southeast Louisiana as part of the Fiscal Year 2010 Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Bill.

Requesting Member: Congressman Steve Scalise

Bill Number: Fiscal Year 2010 Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations Bill

Account: Department of Justice, COPS Law Enforcement Technology

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Washington Parish Sherriff's Office

Address of Requesting Entity: 1002 Main Street, Franklinton, Louisiana 70438

Description of Request: I have secured $291,000 for the Washington Parish Sheriff's Office. The funding will provide law enforcement equipment, and provide proactive and reactive law enforcement activities for the safety of citizens and law enforcement officials engaged in law enforcement activities. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Requesting Member: Congressman Steve Scalise

Bill Number: Fiscal Year 2010 Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations Bill

Account: Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs--Juvenile Justice

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Boys Town Louisiana

Address of Requesting Entity: 700 Frenchman Street, New Orleans, LA 70116

Description of Request: I have secured $147,000 for Boys Town Louisiana, New Orleans, LA. The funding would be to expand an integration of the Boys Town Treatment Family Home program and its Home Family Services program to serve more at-risk girls and boys and their families. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.