Bill Cassidy

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, the National Flood Insurance Program Risk Rating 2.0 has officially been in effect for almost a year, and families in Louisiana are feeling the unfolding disaster. We are not talking about a storm or a flood, which the National Flood Insurance Program is supposed to protect against. We are talking about the financial crisis unfolding at kitchen tables. Families cannot afford the premium hikes that the NFIP is planning with Risk Rating 2.0. For some, the premiums have become unaffordable and threaten the collapse of the value of their home. For now, rate hikes are capped at 18 percent per year, but these compound year after year. So for the couple who has lived in their house for decades, they are not thinking, OK, it is only 18 percent. No, they are thinking it is 18 percent compounded upon 18 percent. And they don't have a plan to move: Oh, let's escape from it. This is where they have been for decades. Eighteen percent compounds and adds up very quickly. This is not fiction. These are real stories that I hear from folks in Louisiana--great Americans, great Louisianians who love our country-- and they are wondering what in the heck is going on. An example is the Bourgeois family, an elderly couple in Raceland. They both turned 83 last year. They have owned their home for 56 years. It has never been in a flood zone, and it has never flooded. Before Risk Rating 2.0, they paid $500 a year in flood insurance premiums. After Risk Rating 2.0, they are scheduled to pay, when fully in effect, $500 per month--from $500 a year to $500 per month. Their full risk premium will reach almost $6,300 in 14 years, but their annual payment will double in the fourth year. So how many 83-year-old retired couples do you know who can afford an extra $5,800 in expenses just like that? The holiday season just passed. I am sure the Bourgeois family--we have big families in South Louisiana--had their children, grandchildren, nieces, and nephews. But I am sure there is extra budgeting this year. Families should not have to spend holidays budgeting for this kind of increase in flood insurance premium when they have never flooded. That is the crazy thing about it. They have never flooded, and these are the premium increases that they are seeing. Now, families across Louisiana and in America's coastal communities-- not just in Louisiana--are finding themselves in a similar situation to the Bourgeois'. By the way, Louisiana has been hard hit by hurricanes over the last few years: Ida, Delta, Zeta, and Laura. Folks in my State are still recovering, and they are responsible for maintaining their insurance. But with Risk Rating 2.0, it feels like the Biden administration is kicking them when they are trying to get back on their feet. So it begs the question: Why is the administration allowing Risk Rating 2.0 to take effect? Congress never required FEMA to implement this. President Biden can stop it with a stroke of the pen. He has the power. He should have asked FEMA to delay or cancel the implementation of Risk Rating 2.0 or to reconsider it altogether. Throughout the process, though, FEMA has not only been slow to share information with policyholders, they have stonewalled Members of Congress. They are not being upfront about the costs to policyholders. Homeowners did not get significant information from FEMA until less than a month before Risk Rating 2.0 began to be implemented, and now many Louisiana policyholders are getting notices in the mail of their new risk premiums. Folks in my State, they feel blindsided. The Bourgeois family was blindsided when they got a notice that their full premium will go from $500 a year to $6,295. We are here to serve the American people. And in case folks think, no, this is not true, they can look at this property--Four Point Drive, Raceland, LA--and they can see that it has never flooded. They can see that this is a single family, a main dwelling. They can see that it is a modest home; it is not a big mansion. The Bourgeoises are not millionaires. And then they can see the premium they have to pay. They can see that there are no discounts being applied and that their premium eventually grows to that full-risk premium. Now, it is not just this family with this; I have a dozen more insurance bills from constituents showing massive premium hikes through no fault of their own. They are penalized just for living where their families have lived for generations. With Risk Rating 2.0, FEMA has put them into an impossible situation. Now, by the way, families are now choosing to drop out of the program because they can't afford the premium. The pool of homeowners is becoming smaller, leaving those subject to the mandatory requirement to buy insurance worse off. Those who are required to own are now faced with the difficult task of coming up with thousands more to pay their insurance or lose their mortgage. FEMA knows this is going to happen. They know that up to 20 to 25 percent of those policyholders will drop their policies because they cannot afford them. That has the potential to put this into what is called an actuarial death spiral, where the risk is placed upon fewer and fewer; therefore, premiums go up even greater and greater; therefore, more and more have to drop. If the intent is to destroy the program, to not help Americans in times of flooding, this policy could not be done more effectively. There has to be another option. Congress has taken steps to avoid major flooding in the future. Louisiana has already received over $680 million for coastal restoration, flood, and waterway projects from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. It is already delivering on its promises. When I was helping to negotiate the bill, I had those Louisiana families in mind. What can we do to lower their risk of flooding-- which, by the way, then helps everyone else in our country--to help make this Flood Insurance Program more affordable and sustainable? Now, the second half of helping these families is ensuring that they are not forced to move because of unaffordable flood insurance premiums. Flood insurance must always remain affordable and accessible to the homeowner, accountable to the taxpayer, and sustainable for the future. Only President Biden has the power to change that now, which he has the responsibility to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I commend my colleague's efforts to ensure this bill has strong religious liberties protections. We share that intent. I am told that the title VII religious exemption, which is specifically referred to and which, by the way, was drafted by House Republican Virginia Foxx. It addresses the issue. Analysis from Senator Burr's HELP counsel shows that Federal courts have interpreted title VII broadly beyond hiring and firing. This is based upon decisions from the liberal Ninth Circuit and the more conservative Fourth. I am told by attorneys that adding language to the bill actually, paradoxically, increases the ability of a liberal court to reinterpret previous jurisprudence. I don't strongly oppose this, but because of the attorneys telling me that it would increase the likelihood of changing previous jurisprudence, which clearly is in favor of these religious employers having abilities that we all want them to have, I will oppose. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, the amendment's benefits are clear. We include Virginia Foxx's House amendment protecting religious employers, endorsed by the National Association of Evangelicals, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the March of Dimes, and the U.S. Chamber. It passed the Health Committee 19 to 2. It allows employers to help a pregnant woman support herself, her family, and her unborn child. This is pro-life. This bill does what we would want for ourselves, our wives, our sisters, and our daughters. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I regret that my colleague has objected to this bill, but I reject the characterization that this would do anything to promote abortion. But it is probably not important what I think. I will quote the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Last night, they said--and this is the Catholic bishops: We believe that [this] version of the bill, read in light of existing liberty protections, helps advance the [U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops'] goal of ensuring that no woman ever feels forced to choose between her future and the life of her child while protecting the conscience rights and religious freedoms of employers. This is the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops last night. And I think as a physician, I can now speak. As a physician, I will say that there are times when a woman, if she wishes to continue in the workforce, needs an accommodation. The Louisville police officer who was quoted in a Cincinnati paper spoke about her need for light accommodation; but those who were ultimately her boss would not give it to her because she was not ``injured.'' So they have a policy in which if you need it and on a doctor's order you should, unless it was a doctor's order because of pregnancy. And she was told that if she sought to use that, she would lose her insurance. At 5 months pregnant, she is going to lose her insurance. I would argue the pro-life position is to make an accommodation for that woman who has those needs so she can safely carry the baby to term. Now, by the way, it is also good for business. Others are endorsing this from the business sector. I will just give one: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. They clearly see that this is something that is a reasonable accommodation not forced by unnamed bureaucrats in Washington, DC, or important people who are employing others across the Nation. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has made this a top priority. With regard to pro-life issues, let me also point out that the March of Dimes, who are so vitally concerned about the health of children, likewise supports it. My colleague has mentioned that it passed out of the HELP Committee 19 to 2, strongly bipartisan, and then passed the House with 315 bipartisan votes. Now, we have experience with these laws nationwide; 30 States have laws such as this already. But that leaves millions of American women uncovered, and our goal was to address it with this bill. Now, let me just go back once more, because, apparently, this is a sticking point. Is it possible that this law would permit someone to impose their will upon a pastor, upon a church, upon a synagogue, if they have religious exemptions? The answer is, absolutely no. This is what the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was referring to. The title VII exemption, which is in Federal law, remains in place. It allows employers to make employment decisions based on firmly held religious beliefs. This bill does not change this. There is an exemption in title VI related to pastors and ministers and Rabbis who conduct their business. All of that remains in place, which is why the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops last night once again endorsed the bill. Now, I think even those who oppose would agree that we need to have a safe environment for pregnant women and their unborn children in the workplace. They deserve our attention. I would say that this bill is pro-family, pro-mother, pro-baby, pro-employer, and pro-economy. I hope at a later point we can pass it. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I rise today to congratulate the Hilliard Art Museum on being awarded accreditation by the American Alliance of Museums. This accreditation offers an industry stamp of approval to the museum, recognizing the hard work of the Hilliard Art Museum team and the support of the Lafayette community. The Hilliard Art Museum opened its doors in 2004. Since its beginning, Hilliard has offered immersive art education to all who visit. Students, families, and art enthusiasts come to the museum for informative collections and breathtaking galleries. The Hilliard Art Museum was accredited by the American Alliance of Museums on November 18, 2022, after being vetted for multiple years. The accreditation process includes collections, organization, and educational assessments. With the American Alliance of Museums accreditation, Hilliard will have greater opportunities to grant funding and new opportunities to borrow art pieces from other museums and collections. Congratulations to the Hilliard Art Museum team for this recognition of their dedication to serving the community through art education.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, today I honor and pay tribute to American Dr. Carolyn Bertozzi. Dr. Bertozzi was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2022 for her outstanding work and dedication to chemical biology research. Dr. Carolyn Bertozzi is the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Chemistry and Professor of Chemical and Systems Biology and Radiology at Stanford University. She is also the Baker Family Director at Sarafan ChEM-H at Stanford and an investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. She completed her undergraduate education in chemistry at Harvard University before earning her Ph.D. in chemistry at UC Berkeley. Following postdoctoral study at UCSF, she returned to Berkeley as a professor in the college of chemistry and led groundbreaking investigations published in major scientific journals. She is an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the German Academy of Sciences Leopardine. She has also received countless awards, including most recently the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry for 2022 is a distinguished honor awarded to Drs. Carolyn Bertozzi, Morten Meldal, and K. Barry Sharpless for the development of click chemistry and biorthogonal chemistry. After Meldal and Sharpless laid the foundation of click chemistry, Bertozzi used click chemistry to study cellular reactions. Cellular machinery that modifies proteins with specific carbohydrates is now leveraged for targeted treatment of cancer and other conditions. I applaud her commitment to this lifesaving invention. It is a privilege to commemorate Dr. Bertozzi's Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Her students and peers are inspired by her dedication to her students and research. As a physician and husband of a breast cancer surgeon, I admire her exemplary work on click chemistry and its application to cancer treatment research. I am honored to recognize her today.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, today I honor and pay tribute to Dan and Sandi Davis. The Davis' have selflessly dedicated more than 40 years of their life to ministry through the United Pentecostal Church. In October of 2022, the Davis' celebrate 20 years of pastoral stewardship at First Pentecostal Church in Baton Rouge, LA. Dan and Sandi met while attending college at Jackson College of Ministries, in Jackson, MS, and married in 1977. Pastor Davis became a licensed minister by the United Pentecostal Church International in 1976 and served in a number of ministerial positions at churches in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Michigan. In 1989, the Davis' moved their family to Jena, LA, to lead the Shady Grove United Pentecostal Church. In 2002, after 13 years at Shady Grove, Dan and Sandi moved to Baton Rouge to begin their ministry at First Pentecostal Church of Baton Rouge. There, they have since faithfully served the congregation of First Pentecostal Church and the Baton Rouge community. I met Dan when I was running for my first political office. He didn't know me from Adam. But from the get-go he was encouraging me, as he encourages everyone. I met Sandi through Dan and through them met others such as Bishop Tenney and his ``Tennyisms.'' We have had great conversations regarding music and life. They regularly send notes, text messages, and messages through others to pick up my spirits. They do this for me; they do it for everyone. It is the ministry they have had for 40 years. Joining the First Pentacostal celebrating these 40 years of ministry are Dan and Sandi's two daughters, Mandi Davis Hartzell and Heather Davis Dean; two sons-in-law, Ryan Hartzell and Chantry Dean; and three grandchildren; Ava Dean, Aidan Hartzell, and Zane Hartzell. It is truly an honor and a privilege to commemorate the Davis' 20 years of ministry at First Pentecostal Church in Baton Rouge. I am blessed to have them as friends.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Zachary Schultz, an intern in my office, be granted floor privileges until September 29, 2022.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I am constantly struggling that when people say there is no consensus in Washington, DC, there is often consensus. It is just a question of a different means by which to achieve the goals and consensus. If I were to say that we would want to have increased national security, lower global greenhouse gas emissions, a booming economy, and energy security, everybody would agree. The difference is how we achieve those means. And so what this process is, is to give the American people the opportunity to judge what is the best set of policies that will allow us to achieve that which we are speaking of. Clearly, there is a nexus, a connection--you put them all together-- between energy security, national security, the economy of our country and the economy of a family, and whether or not a country is lowering or increasing its contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions. This talk will be about that nexus between energy security, national security, global greenhouse gas emissions--how do we decrease them--and the economy of our country and the economy of a family. Now, I am from Louisiana--I think that is pretty well known; the senior Senator from Louisiana--and we are privileged to host many of the facilities of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, that connection between energy security and national security. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, for those who do not know, is where we have salt domes full of oil, millions of barrels, so that if ever there is another embargo, like there was in 1973, where Middle Eastern countries were attempting to punish the United States, we would have enough in our Strategic Petroleum Reserve so that we could draw from and we could preserve our national security and our economic security-- again, that nexus between energy security, national security, and the economy of a country and the economy of a family. President Biden has decided to drain the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower the price of gasoline. I am all for lowering the price of gasoline, but if you think about it, drawing oil from a Strategic Petroleum Reserve is basically the same as pumping it out of the ground if it is in West Texas or off the coast of Louisiana. One is just oil that has been produced and put in a salt dome, and the other is being produced naturally. So rather than increasing production on Federal lands, the President made the decision to just draw from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Unfortunately, we are now at the lowest level of reserves since 1984. To the degree--and it is a great degree--that our national security depends upon being energy independent, we have lowered our Reserve to the lowest since 1984, which is to say that we are less secure in terms of energy and therefore less secure in terms of our economy and less secure in terms of our national security. The President needs a plan to refill that from domestically produced oil--period, end of story--and the swing production of that is going to be production on Federal lands, such as that off the coast of Louisiana. Where does that leave us? Unfortunately, President Biden's energy plan is such that the Biden administration has set the record for the fewest oil leases on Federal lands in the first 19 months of his office. Both Presidents Obama and Trump approved over 10 times the number of leases as the Biden administration has over the same period. So while Russia is attempting to blackmail the rest of the world by their energy production; where we have drained our Strategic Petroleum Reserve down to its lowest levels since 1984; where Europe is paying record prices for oil and natural gas, which may bring on a recession- depression there, which, of course, hurts our economy, this administration has had the fewest leases on record, and Obama and Trump had 10 times as many in the same period. This is hurting our energy security, which means it hurts our national security, which means it is going to hurt the economy of our country and the economy of a family. My gosh, just ask what they are paying for their utility bills and what they are paying to fill up their tanks. Ask what they are paying at the grocery store, which is very dependent upon the supply of natural gas and oil in order to keep those prices lower. They would say they are hurting. This anti-energy policy has hurt across the board. By the way, I think the rationale for not issuing those leases is that in some way, if the United States does not develop our own oil and gas resources, magically, global greenhouse gas emissions are going to decrease. That is the superstition of those who favor that policy-- except, unfortunately, logic. You can't ignore facts. A national laboratory has said that if you are speaking about oil, that which has the lowest life cycle of greenhouse gas emissions is the oil produced off the coast of Louisiana, which is far lower than the oil that we import from other countries. If you are really concerned about lowering global greenhouse gas emissions, it is the environmental standards that we use in our country to produce our national resources--and, by the way, creating our American jobs--that have the lowest life cycle carbon emissions. So that completes our nexus. We spoke about energy security related to national security, which in turn creates better jobs and a better economy for us all and actually has the effect of lowering global greenhouse gas emissions. That is our nexus. Unfortunately, this administration's policy is hurting American families, as they pay more through inflation; hurting our national security, as our Strategic Petroleum Reserve is at its lowest level, and therefore our energy security; and also contributing to increased global greenhouse gas emissions, as we have to import from countries without our environmental standards. Because we are unable to increase our production and supply, say Europe--they are burning coal instead of our oil and gas and, with that, increasing global greenhouse gas emissions. There are some bright spots. On a bipartisan basis, the Congress just passed the Kigali Amendment, which recognizes--which is a form of hydrocarbons which were used in refrigerants. The use of this will lower global greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. Congress just passed that. So other countries that persist in using older technology which increases global greenhouse gas emissions will be at a competitive disadvantage because Congress passed that. So in the midst of this kind of bad news--boy, it is just not working out the way it should--we actually have an example of how we can make it work better. I am an advocate for a carbon border adjustment, not a carbon tax. I think carbon taxes are the wrong way to go. Let me explain. If we have a carbon border adjustment where the U.S. chemical industry, using our environmental standards, using natural gases of feedstock, everything we have done and invested in to lower global greenhouse gas emissions-- we are competing with countries in Asia, specifically China, which don't use those measures, which pollute far more than we, but because they don't use their environmental standards, they have a lower cost of manufacturing. We are competing against cheaper goods, but they are cheaper precisely because they are producing more global greenhouse gas emissions. The Kigali Amendment tells us what to do. If we had a carbon border adjustment where we say that this is the carbon intensity of our goods that are produced, and if a country in Asia--say, specifically, China-- has a carbon emission profile that may be 5 to 10 times higher, if they want to import their goods, they would have to pay a fee based upon how their carbon intensity is greater than ours. That is great. One, it is going to help us with our economy. Our workers who are losing their jobs to those in China because they don't enforce their environmental standards and we enforce ours and therefore our cost of production is higher--those jobs begin to return. It will be cheaper to produce here after all if China is forced to pay for the pollution they are putting into the atmosphere. It creates more jobs. That is good for Americans and good for our economy. It strengthens us relative to the Chinese, who are using their profits to build a bigger army. It is good for greenhouse gas emissions. Now China is actually incentivized to lower emissions as opposed to now, where they have no incentive to do anything but to increase their emissions. So we begin to decrease global greenhouse gas emissions. That is good for our national security. The stronger our economy is and the relative weakness of the Chinese economy means that we are better able to invest relative to the Chinese, which means that we are better able to spread Western values as opposed to the Chinese values, which involve bribery, which involve corruption of government, which involve coercion. Just look at what has happened in Hong Kong if someone thinks the Chinese Communist Party is a better system of government. We are able to export our values and push back upon theirs. So if we are trying to have a policy, as I said at the outset, which combines the best instincts of the right and the left, where we all want to have energy security, national security--we want to have a better, stronger economy for working Americans, and we want to lower global greenhouse gas emissions--the Kigali Amendment, which passed on a bipartisan basis, gives us an example of how to do that. Let's make a strength of our environmental regulations, and let's make others pay for their ignoring those same regulations. In so doing, we begin to attract jobs back here for Americans to strengthen our economy, lowering global greenhouse gas emissions, strengthening our energy security, our economy, and therefore our national security. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, James Bollich was born on April 15, 1921, in Mowata, LA. As a young man, he joined the U.S. Army Air Corps and participated in Louisiana maneuvers in 1941. In 1942, he was deployed to the Philippines, and 18 days after his arrival, Congress voted to enter World War II. Mr. Bollich served as an infantryman on the island of Luzon and fought valiantly during the Battle of Bataan. He was captured by Imperial Japanese forces and was forced to endure the Bataan Death March. Mr. Bollich later spent more than 3 years as a prisoner of war in Mukden, Manchuria. On August 15, 1945, his 24th birthday, Mr. Bollich and his fellow survivors were freed by the Russian Army. After the war, Mr. Bollich transitioned into civilian life, and attended college at the University of Southwest Louisiana. He and his wife Celia raised their family in Lafayette, LA, and worked as an exploration geologist until his retirement in 1986. He was the author of several books including ``A Soldier's Story,'' where he detailed his time as a serviceman and a prisoner of war. Mr. Bollich received many commendations during his military service including the Purple Heart, Bronze Star medal, Prisoner of War medal, WWII Victory medal, Presidential Unit citation with two oakleaf clusters, American Campaign Medal, Asiatic-Pacific medal with 2 bronze stars, Army Good Conduct medal, American Defense medal with one bronze star, Philippine Presidents badge, Philippine Defense medal, Philippine Liberation medal, and the Philippine Independence medal. In one of our Nation's darkest times, James Bollich answered the call and served this country with esteem and dignity. Mr. Bollich was an American hero and should be honored as such.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I hear from families in Louisiana every day that they are struggling to keep up with gas prices at historic heights. It is becoming unaffordable to drive to work or drop their kids off at school. The 15-year-old pickup that they drive--not because they don't want a new car but because they cannot afford a new car--now costs $100 a tank to fill up. And for those who say: Tell them to buy an electric vehicle, that is the modern-day equivalent of Marie Antoinette saying to the peasants ``Let them eat cake.'' Families are forced to choose between buying groceries or buying gas. And the Biden administration doesn't seem to be listening, so I am here to make their voices heard. Let me just read from letters we received from constituents, just kind of like sending us a line. Here is Lorrie from Jamestown, LA. Dear Mr. Cassidy, Is there any relief in sight for gas prices? We had affordable gas under the Trump administration. There is no reason we should have these prices now if the oil and gas production in the United States was in full force. Why would we ever depend on other countries for anything when we have already been energy independent just a short time ago? Families in our country are suffering. Next letter, Gwendolyn from Prairieville: Dear Senator Cassidy, please do whatever it takes to get American oil and gas used as resources. I am a divorced 60- year-old woman on a limited income. Gas has gone up, electricity has gone up, groceries have gone up, medical expenses have gone up, and insurance has gone up drastically, and my pay has not kept up at all. Here is Donnis from Singer: Dear Senator Cassidy, I just wanted to voice my opinion about how it makes no sense that our government will not renew oil leases off the coast of Louisiana . . . There is no reason we need to be held hostage by countries who do not care about our sovereignty. This is Philip from DeRidder: Please help with these high gas and food prices. I am retired and on a fixed income and these higher gas prices and food prices are starting to hurt me and my wife. Here is Gregory from New Iberia: This is not about party affiliation. We're coming into a bad crisis. Both parties need to come together and talk about drilling. We have all the resources we need to start drilling again, and I know you are trying. I see it on the news. Please keep trying. Here is Laura from Vinton: I want to express my concern for us Louisiana citizens. Gas prices are rising every day, food prices are rising everyday also. It's coming down to having to choose between to get gas or get groceries. Something needs to be done. U.S. citizens are suffering daily. Please help us Americans! Here is Daryl from Mooringsport: As your constituent, I urge you to publicly call for and vote in favor of the immediate and permanent expansion of domestic oil and natural gas production. No more Green New Deal nonsense. Energy dependence is driving higher gas and diesel prices that are causing skyrocketing gas and food prices. We can't rely on Iran or Venezuela to save us. We need to produce our own energy here--in America--and NOW. Lastly, Karen from Gretna asked: Why are we importing any oil? Energy independence is of vital importance to us and our national security. Louisiana was a leader in domestic energy production. It is shocking to see how quickly our country has changed. Please continue to work on our behalf to force our government to reinstate the energy independence policies that were in effect during the Trump administration. Speak loudly for us. Speak loudly for us. Speak loudly for us. What these letters make clear is that Americans are hurting. That is why I call for an Operation Warp Speed to lower the prices at the pump, to unleash American energy, and to regain our energy independence. President Biden needs to stop prioritizing far-left climate activists over the families sitting at the dinner table asking what they have to give up next in order to make ends meet. President Biden, as one of my constituents says, needs to go where real people live. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Caroline Watson, in my office, be granted floor privileges until July 21, 2022.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of our strongest and valued leaders in municipal government from my home State of Louisiana, Mayor Jennifer Vidrine. On July 30, Mayor Vidrine will be become the first African-American woman to lead the Louisiana Municipal Association--LMA. She will also be the third woman to serve in this prestigious position in the LMA's 96 years of service to municipal government in Louisiana. While Mayor Vidrine will undoubtedly lead this fine organization for the next year with great loyalty and enthusiasm, she will also continue to serve her most beloved residents of Ville Platte. Since her election in 2011, Mayor Vidrine has not stopped working to bring improvements and investments to her city. She remains at the forefront of local government officials developing new approaches to solving complicated problems. Mayor Vidrine is a woman of great faith who believes in serving her community wholeheartedly. She is a lifelong member of her hometown congregation of the Ninth Missionary Baptist Church, where she serves and assists in a number of leadership roles. Her commitment to the elderly and youth are quite noteworthy and deeply rooted in her beliefs. Among her many accomplishments, she is the founder of the Ville Platte Girls and Boys Place where afterschool and summer programs teach children culinary skills, music appreciation, improved communications, and writing techniques. During the summer, Mayor Vidrine is a regular presence at the Girls and Boys Place offering encouragement to the children to expand their thinking, explore their passions and to be a good citizen. She works tirelessly to provide unique opportunities for these young minds, many of which come from very low-income homes. This, in turn, allows parents to feel more hopeful that their children will have a better life. When it comes to technology, Mayor Vidrine has practically taken her community from ``worst to first'' as she likes to say, by developing critical partnerships with public and private broadband providers. In the very near future, the city of Ville Platte will begin enjoying internet speeds like they have never seen before, thanks in large part to the mayor's efforts. She knows the importance of technology and how it has an immediate impact on the lives of every resident. I consider Mayor Jennifer Vidrine as a most accomplished stateswoman, and I am extremely proud to call her a friend. I ask all of Louisiana to join me in congratulating Mayor Vidrine for reaching this important milestone in her career.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I rise today to express my appreciation for and offer my sincere congratulations to a dedicated public servant, Mr. Roland J. Babin, on his retirement after 67 years of service for the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development. Mr. Babin commenced his career as a student worker in 1955. He currently serves as the districtwide maintenance specialist for the department's Acadian region, making him the department's and the State of Louisiana's longest actively serving employee. During his long tenure, Mr. Babin served the department and the State in a number of ways, from working as an engineer aide I to an engineer technician VII. He has supervised and trained countless construction and maintenance personnel over the years, making an impact on the department that will last for years to come. Even at 85 years old, Mr. Babin can be found on a job site operating a shovel, measuring tools, a roller behind a hot mix paver, or a vibratory compactor. Mr. Babin also recorded daily journal entries, dating back to 1970, narrating the department's construction and maintenance projects, hurricanes, ice storms, other emergency responses, and personal anecdotes from his career. In 2017, Mr. Babin was a recipient of the Charles E. Dunbar, Jr., Career Civil Service Award, the highest honor awarded to classified Louisiana State employees for outstanding and selfless service for the Louisianan community. His tireless work throughout the years has ensured that the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development will continue to serve Louisiana for decades to come. The department and the State of Louisiana have benefited greatly from his leadership and contributions, and his legacy will not be soon forgotten. I personally thank Mr. Babin for his notable service and congratulate him on his well-deserved retirement.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, let me begin by saying that I am proudly pro-Second Amendment. I believe in the God-given right for law- abiding Americans to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment has given millions of Americans the right to defend their spouses, their families, their children, and their homes. But if you consider yourself a supporter of the Second Amendment, you absolutely want to do something about Uvalde, to do something about the murders related to domestic violence, to do something about straw purchases, and to do something about teen suicide by gun. You cannot be pro-Second Amendment unless you care deeply about these issues. That is why we have targeted legislation, the Safer Communities Act, that addresses the specific problems that have led to mass shootings. We do it by restricting the access of someone who should not have a weapon, by providing additional mental health resources, and by hardening schools. This legislation accomplishes these goals without infringing upon a law-abiding citizen's Second Amendment right. Let me repeat that because there has been confusion in speeches from this floor. There has been the internet exploding. There are rumors afloat that somehow this infringes upon a law-abiding citizen's right to keep and bear arms. That is absolutely false, and if anyone says so, they are misleading the American people. This doesn't do any of that. What this legislation says is that unless you are adjudicated--now, ``adjudicated'' is a $5 word that means you go before a judge, and the judge looks at the evidence. Under this bill, if a State puts this into law, then they have got to follow due process, which says that the person who may lose his Second Amendment right has the right to an attorney, a higher standard for the evidence that must be presented, and that the person has his day in court. This was the gold standard that the National Rifle Association always advocated for, as if we were going to take Second Amendment rights from someone who should not have them, and this bill has that gold standard. I had a couple of townhalls just to find out what folks back in Louisiana were thinking about as to all of this. Frankly, they are talking about inflation and the price at the pump as much as they are talking about this, but I got a message: They think that we can protect Second Amendment rights and do something about a tragedy such as Uvalde. Let me give you some of the comments because it shows you the confusion and it shows you the concerns and it shows you where the American people are. Chris asked if, when he dies, he can pass his gun to his child if his child is law-abiding. Absolutely. That is preserved. We don't touch that, and, by golly, Chris should be able to do so. We were asked by Tyler if this raises the age of the ability to purchase a weapon from 18 to 21. It does not. It doesn't touch that--although, apparently, Tyler had been told that that was the case. I was asked by R.J. about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. I said: Man, we have got something in there, R.J., that actually addresses that. I heard from two people who said we should forbid the purchase of so- called assault weapons. Then I heard from one guy who said: Man, I live in a tough section of town, and if somebody invades my house, I don't want it to be a fair fight. So I have heard all sides of these arguments as to what, but the message I got was that we can address--we can protect--Second Amendment rights but still do something about Uvalde. Now, it is not just Uvalde. There are other types of gun violence in our society. This bill addresses at least four. There is the domestic violence. There is the suicide by the child. There is the gangster buying a gun and shooting people up. Then there is the rampage shooting. Let's talk about each of those. When it comes to the domestic violence--when a guy beats up his girlfriend and he comes back with a weapon and shoots her a month later--that happens too much. I have talked to my police chief, Murphy Paul, in Baton Rouge, and he tells me that domestic violence and domestic murder spiked under the pandemic. This bill does something about it. I asked people who oppose this bill: What about domestic violence, man? What about that woman who is threatened? Shouldn't we do something for her safety? This bill does something for her safety and, quite likely, for her children's safety, and it quite likely prevents a suicide by the troubled man who goes there in the first place. Let's talk about crime, gangsters, straw purchases. A boyfriend has got a felony and can't buy a weapon. So the girlfriend buys one and slips it to him. It is against the law now, but it happens all the time. R.J., if you are watching on C-SPAN, man, I am channeling you. We took the provision R.J. said we should do, and we increased the penalties for that person who buys a weapon merely to pass it to another. They will, hopefully, throw her in prison for as much as 10 years if she contributes to a murder by buying a gun for someone who goes out and commits that murder. We talk about rampage shootings. Do you know what is much more common? It is the teenager shooting himself. We stop that. Oh, they can still steal a weapon if they want to, but there is $12 billion in some form or another for mental health services. We do our best to reach that child. By the way, the rampage shooting is the worst. Then comes suicide. Then comes the addiction. I am a doctor. I have seen this stuff. After the addiction, it just becomes the person who is emotionally troubled. We are putting in mental health services that can address it all with money for a 9-8-8 line so that if somebody is just like, ``Oh, my gosh, I am desperate,'' they have somebody to call. Personally, I would like to have an app. I would like to have an ``I am a troubled teenager'' app, and ``I need somebody to talk to.'' They are doing this in Utah, and they tell me that the investment has been tremendous. I think they told me they prevent a suicide a week. That is off the top of my head. Call it a suicide every 2 weeks. That is a powerful intervention. This bill has that capability. Lastly, there is the information regarding the rampage shooting-- Uvalde. Somebody told me: You know, I searched on the internet, and I didn't see that this guy was troubled. That is precisely the point. This man is troubled, but he is less than 18. Those records are sealed. You can't get to them. So, even though every indication was that this young, troubled man would have had a reason not to be able to purchase a weapon, it is sealed. When he turns 18, he is a clean guy, and he goes out and buys two assault weapons and starts planning his assault. If you are pro-Second Amendment, by golly, you want to stop that. What this bill does is it allows the court to look into that and say: ``Oh, he is clean; that is OK,'' or ``No, he is troubled, and we need a little extra time to look at this.'' By the way, that is a provision that has been distorted and twisted to imply that law-abiding 18-to-21-year-olds would not be able to purchase a weapon. If you are law-abiding, you can still purchase that weapon if you are 18, but if not or if there is another indication, then the background check has a chance to look at it. If you are pro- Second Amendment, by golly--I will say it one more time--you should applaud that provision. Now, let's do a couple of other things. Do you know that, right now, a Mexican cartel can smuggle weapons to Mexico to shoot people up? We make that illegal. You would think it already would be, but it is not. How can somebody be against that, criminalizing cartels for smuggling weapons to Mexico? But, somehow, we are infringing upon the Second Amendment rights of cartels. My gosh, I wish we would do worse to them. We increase penalties for illegal gun traffickers and criminal-to- criminal gun transfers. We are doing something about criminals, but-- have I said it yet?--we preserve the Second Amendment rights for the law-abiding. Now, I am a gastroenterologist. So I don't know anything about due process except as a term, but in speaking to John Cornyn, who has done a fantastic job, and the other attorneys, I have learned a little bit about due process. By the way, whenever somebody calls me up and they say they have heard something on the internet, I say: Why don't you read the bill? It is 80 pages. Read the bill. On page 33, you are going to read about due process. It says that any State red flag law--and we don't encourage those red flag laws, but if the State decides to do one and they want Federal dollars, they now have got to obey these rules. The rules say that it must include, at a minimum, due process rights that prevent any violation or infringement of the Constitution of the United States. If you are pro-Second Amendment, you should like that. A State can actually have a red flag law right now and not have that in there, but under this bill, by golly, they had better. How can anyone object to that? The bill also ensures that no State can sidestep due process. It strengthens the citizen's right to due process. It increases the evidentiary bar. It can't be hearsay. It can't be a social worker: Oh, I am a little nervous. It has to be before a judge, and it has to have evidence, and the person losing their right or may be losing their right has to have the ability to have an attorney with them. Now, no offense to my people on the other side of the aisle, but if a liberal State puts forth a law that has poor due process, they won't get Federal dollars. That should be something we are proud of. My State doesn't have a red flag law. This bill does not require, mandate, or incentivize that Louisiana develop a red flag law. But, you know, my State does get money for drug courts, for enforcing restraint orders so the fellow who is not supposed to go near his wife because they are afraid he will beat her up again--the police have more resources in order to prevent that. Who can be against that? That is in this bill. By the way, our legislation also hardens schools. There is money for the STOP School Violence school safety program, including school resource officers and school hardening. There is additional funding for mental health resources, drug and violence prevention, mentoring, crisis intervention, high-quality training for school personnel on suicide prevention, and human trafficking. How can someone be against that? This is a solution. By the way, we have a serious problem in mental health. In my career, I have been privileged to work with Senator Murphy and others on solutions for mental health. There are increased dollars for Medicaid, including telehealth services for schools that might be in a rural area otherwise without a mental professional around. It expands mental health services under Medicaid, school-based mental health services-- all expanded. It reauthorizes the Pediatric Mental Health Care Access Program. It gives pediatric providers extra training in mental health. I could go on. Now, there is still a lot of misinformation out there, but I would say, if you don't know what is in the bill, it is online. Pick it up, and read it. But if you are pro-Second Amendment, you should be for this bill. We can protect Second Amendment rights. We can make an impact on teen suicide, upon domestic abuse, upon straw purchases landing guns in the hands of criminals, and upon rampage shootings, and we could do that while protecting the Second Amendment. That is what I am hearing from the American people. That is what this bill does. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the life of Mrs. Sherra Fertitta of Monroe, LA. Mrs. Fertitta leaves behind a legacy of generosity, optimism, and intellect after a remarkable career as a student, educator, and incredibly engaged member of her community. Mrs. Fertitta was proud to teach for more than 25 years across three States before retiring in 2010 from Ouachita Parish High School. Upon completion of her impressive teaching career, Ms. Fertitta accepted the title of educational director of Vantage Health Plan of Louisiana. Here, she created an educational series via weekly radio interviews with Representative Michael Echols for public health education purposes. Ms. Fertitta continued her community involvement as a member and core organizer of OPWRC for more than a decade. She spearheaded many projects during her time with OPWRC, including an event during August 2020 that safely provided a forum for Fifth District congressional candidates and voters to interact ahead of the election season amidst a global pandemic. I extend my deepest condolences to the family and friends of Ms. Fertitta, who have lost an invaluable loved one. Her memory will live on with her children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and all whom she encountered as a dedicated, kindhearted educator.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, today I rise in recognition of seersucker manufacturers and enthusiasts across the United States. I wish everyone a Happy National Seersucker Day. This uniquely American fashion has a storied history dating back to 1909. The first seersucker suit was designed by Joseph Haspel at his Broad Street facility in New Orleans, LA. Louisiana is proud to have played an important part in introducing the country to seersucker apparel. This lightweight cotton fabric, known for its signature pucker, has been worn and enjoyed by Americans across the country during the hot summer months. Mr. Haspel said it best: ``Hot is hot, no matter what you do for a living.'' In the 1990s, Seersucker Day was established by Members of this Chamber to honor this unique American fashion. I proudly resumed this tradition in 2014 in the U.S. House of Representatives and continued this tradition in the U.S. Senate. This year, I wish to designate Thursday, June 9, 2022, as the ninth annual National Seersucker Day. I encourage everyone to wear seersucker on this day to commemorate this traditionally American clothing.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a group of committed Louisiana fathers making a difference in their community and the lives of their children. Violence within the halls of Southwood High School in Shreveport reached a concerning peak in the fall of 2021, when 23 students were arrested in just 3 days. Mr. Michael LaFitte gathered 40 fellow concerned fathers, including David Telsee, III, Michael Morgan, Zachery Johnson, and Kenneth Henry, Jr., and established a wholesome presence in the halls of Southwood High. They were able to quell conflict and violence. They are promoting peace, order, and dropping dad jokes with a profound impact. They have prevented fights and arrests since forming their group, Dads on Duty. By fostering a safer environment in Southwood High, Dads on Duty has allowed the youth to focus on learning and growing. Dads on Duty is demonstrating a strategy they believe can benefit students in other schools. They have plans to introduce this program of engaged parents in each Caddo Parish school campus moving forward. Dads on Duty has garnered attention at the city, parish, State, and national levels--and rightfully so. I applaud their efforts and look forward to seeing how they can continue to better our communities.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I call up my motion to instruct conferees, which is at the desk.

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, the importance of trade agreements is that everyone follows the rules they agreed to. Mexico is not following the USMCA. They have forced the closures or partial closures of dozens of fuel facilities and have canceled permits for the import and export of fuels. They are favoring their national industry, PEMEX, and disadvantaging American companies, including companies building renewable projects. These actions chill foreign direct investment with Mexico, hurt American businesses, and undermine climate goals; but Mexico continues to benefit from the rest of the USMCA. We wish to be a strong and dependable trade partner with Mexico, but the USMCA should be honored. The role of the USTR is to represent the interests of the United States and hold trade partners to their word. Mexico should respect property rights for U.S. businesses. This should be a priority for the USTR. I yield back all time. Vote on Motion

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, every Senator, when she or he goes home, speaks to families feeling the crushing burden of inflation, in large part driven by fuel prices--it is certainly true when I go home to Louisiana--and they hope for a better job; one, they would like a better job, but, two, they need the extra money in order to keep up with the inflation. There is a connection with their personal economic concerns, Putin's war in Ukraine, and China doing their best to take American jobs by ignoring environmental standards, using slave labor, giving subsidies to the businesses, making it almost impossible for American businesses to work here and compete with products made in China. As one example of just how successful China has been, in the early 2000s, China was about 19th and 20th in manufacturing and carbon emissions. Since then, since the early 2000s, China has become No. 1 worldwide, both in the amount of manufacturing but also in the amount of their carbon emissions. Indeed, the increase in carbon emissions for China is more than the combined decrease of the United States, the EU, and the United Kingdom in that same period of time. We have been doing our best to improve our environmental standards for the benefit of the whole world, and China has exploited that, using their lack of enforcement of standards to attract our jobs to their country, and yet our global greenhouse gas emissions are worse off. Now, as I mentioned, the inflation, the hope for a better job, which is not realized, Putin's war, using energy as a national security tool, and China's concerted strategy are all interwoven. There is a nexus, and that nexus is between energy and the climate, the economy of a family and of a nation, and national security. So if we are going to improve the financial situation for that family in Louisiana, a working family in Nevada, or any of our States and do something about our national security concerns, then we must do something about energy, and that is related to emissions. The most effective way of doing this is looking at how China addresses their emissions and how the United States does. Now, when I speak of emissions, I speak of the fact that we now use natural gas instead of coal, and natural gas burns much more cleanly than coal, and so, therefore, we have cleaner air in the United States than we did even 20 years ago. But China uses coal for about 60 percent of their energy feedstock. And so to understand China as a competitor, let's look at their economic, geopolitical, and national security strategies against us, and we are going to look at it through the prism of carbon emissions because if we think about national security without thinking about energy and the associated emissions, if we don't think about them all at the same time, we are wasting our time, just wasting our time. So, again, examining as a nexus. There is a petrochemical plant in Louisiana that has invested heavily in lowering their emissions. We pay a little extra for the products they produce, but we accept that extra cost so that we have this cleaner environment. Just as an example, the plastic that is on the back of my phone, that plastic is made from natural gas usually, and the process of making that has rigorous environmental standards to make sure that we protect those who live around the plant. China does not do that. They do not enforce those standards, nor, as I mentioned earlier, do they use natural gas. They are much more likely to use coal, and they preferentially build their powerplants on the Pacific coast of China. So the emissions go into the atmosphere, and they blow across the Pacific, and they land in the United States. Much of the problems of the west coast of the United States with SOX and NOX are from plants that originate their emissions in China. And did I say it lowers their cost of production by not enforcing those? By lowering the cost of production, you attract American jobs away from the United States of America over there. And did I say it strengthens their economy? And by strengthening their economy, they have more money to invest in their military and more money to pursue their geopolitical strategy, which is to undermine the influence of the United States of America. By not applying our emission standards to China, giving them a free pass, we are allowing them to implement their strategy. Now, by the way, I am not against international trade. We can look at the treaties we have with Canada and with Mexico or with Central American countries, and we can see that there are certain labor and environmental standards that are embedded in those. And it is an even playing field, of sorts. So if we have a clean air standard here in the United States, there is something like that in Mexico and something like that in Canada. If we have labor standards here, we have something like that in Honduras and something like that in Guatemala. So we are still competing, but the playing field is more even. Now, there are other benefits of trading in the Western Hemisphere. About 40 percent of the goods that Mexico produces are reimported from the United States. There is an exchange that goes back so that the revenue that is produced in trade disproportionately comes from Mexico back to the United States. So while that number is 40 percent with Mexico, it is only 4 percent with China. And it is not like we are sending all this money to China. We had about a $355 billion trade deficit with them last year. And I am not talking about the deficit; I am just saying that only 4 percent of that revenue comes back to the United States in order to reinvest in the American economy. So I am all for trade, but I want to have something which is more mutually beneficial and one in which there is a level playing field and one in which the disregard for environmental standards is not used as a strategy to strip jobs away from Americans in order to improve an economy of a competitor that uses that money to improve their military standing and uses that money to undermine our influence and, by the way, to attempt to expand their geopolitical viewpoint. Now, I will say once more, I love capitalism. It has the ability to elevate people out of poverty. Three generations ago, my family left Ireland and came to the United States because they didn't have enough to eat, and because this is the greatest capitalist country in the world, my family did quite well because of the system of government we have here. I am not arguing against that. But what we cannot tolerate is the arbitrage of rules that are put in place by developed countries to protect not just our own citizens but the global environment from the ill effects of certain types of activities, say, in this case, burning energy. If we are going to equalize the playing field, if you will, to lawfully and peacefully defeat a strategy which has explicit goals to take jobs from the United States of America and to eclipse us as a world power, we need to think strategically as to how to defeat this strategy. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, today my State and I think the entire country should both mourn the loss and celebrate the life of an American hero and dedicated civil rights leader--Johnnie Jones, who recently died at age 102 but in his 102 years fought for our country, fought for the free world, and also fought to bring civil rights to a better place. During World War II, Johnnie Jones helped storm the beaches of Normandy as part of D-day, liberate France from Nazi occupation--along the way, being part of the Battle of the Bulge. He was injured during the D-day invasion when his ship hit a mine, and he suffered shrapnel wounds from German air attacks, but he never stopped fighting. When he came back, he attended Southern Law School and then led civil rights efforts in Baton Rouge. He legally represented the organizers at the Baton Rouge bus boycott, which served as a forerunner or a template for the Montgomery bus boycott. Throughout his career, he took on several civil rights cases, advocating for equality under the law, and served a term in the Louisiana House of Representatives. His commitment to service and his love of our country was not just admirable but inspiring. Last year, I had the honor to present him with a Purple Heart for the wounds he received during the D-day invasion in 1944. My grandson has been to the World War II Museum in New Orleans--a tremendous museum--and he is now very much into the heroism of our soldiers who were in both World War II and World War I. So I took my grandson to meet Mr. Jones because I wanted him to meet a real-life hero. Here you see him at 102--so proud of his medals, saluting. My grandson, just the other day, said: Papaw, remind me of that man we met. So his meeting Mr. Jones 2 years ago has inspired a 7-year-old to live his life a better way. So, as Mr. Jones salutes us, shall we all be inspired, shall we always remember the heroism abroad and the heroism here. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about saving school choice or, perhaps, parental choice. Some students learn differently than others do. I am the parent of a child with dyslexia. I can tell you that any such parent knows one- size-fits-all education does not work. Parents and students should have the ability to choose the learning environment that is best for that child, and I think the parent can make the choice better than the school board and certainly better than bureaucrats in the Department of Education here in Washington, DC. The charter school program was created by Congress for that exact purpose: To ensure that parents could choose what is best for their child. Power to the parent. Giving parents the power is crucial to allowing every student to succeed. Unfortunately, there are groups working to undermine the power the parent should have to choose their child's school. The U.S. Department of Education has decided to disregard what is in the best interest of the student with a new proposed rule that adds new requirements for applicants completely unrelated to student outcomes. Applicants would have to demonstrate an unmet need for a charter school, provide evidence of overenrollment at existing public schools in order to establish a charter school. It seems as if the Department of Education is putting up arbitrary barriers to opening a charter school simply out of prejudice. They don't want the parent to have the power. Our country's charter schools are under threat from the far left and from teachers unions who seek to shut them down because charter school staffs are difficult to unionize. Now, these unions know it is much harder to spread their influence in charter schools; and in some cases, it is, frankly, impossible for a charter school to unionize. And the giant unions see this as a simple problem. They know the more charter schools there are, the less revenue they get. So their solution is equally as simple, take power away from parents with layers of new bureaucracy and government regulation. We should not let that happen. And let's just put this in perspective. Since the pandemic began, it has been public charter schools that have seen a substantial increase in demand. They opened up sooner, and they stayed open in larger numbers than traditional public schools. And we know that open schools are better for children. Parents should have the power to send their child to a school where they feel like they, the parent, have a voice, and where they know their child is more likely to succeed. Now, let's be clear who this rule is written for--not for the parent and not for the child. It is not written to help the student. It is written to help unions exercise more control over a student's life. This rule makes no mention of how many of these new restrictions improve student achievement or actually help students. And at a time when students are falling behind in record numbers, we need new and innovative approaches to our education system, not just hand the keys over to a special interest group. The truth is, these rules give less choice to families, will hold students back, and do more harm than good. Now, the charter school program has enjoyed bipartisan support for nearly 30 years. Any substantial change to the program should go through Congress and receive thoughtful consideration. And parent choice for the school their child attends should not be gutted by an informal committee of union employees and education department officials. Those of us who care about the student, those of us who see the role of charter schools, we have one message to Secretary of Education Cardona: Back off of our charter schools.