Bill Cassidy

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I would like to take time to recognize that October 10, 2015, will be the 104th National Day of the Republic of China, Taiwan. Over the years, the United States and Taiwan have maintained a strong relationship based on common values and global interests. I hope to see Taiwan remain a strong ally and trade partner for many years to come as we look towards a mutually prosperous future. It is a great pleasure to extend my best wishes to the people of Taiwan on this special day.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill that is now being considered. I will start by saying that this is 3601 Gerstner Memorial Parkway, Lake Charles, LA. This is the location for the new Lake Charles VA clinic--a clinic that has taken 13 years to get approved, a clinic that has seen delay after delay, costing veterans access to quality health care, a clinic still waiting to be built. This is a picture of the current facility in Lake Charles, where veterans have to go for their health care while they have waited for over 13 years to have the new facility built. This RV and this small building are why Congress must advance this MILCON-VA appropriations bill and why the President should sign it into law. This mobile clinic in Lake Charles--you almost laugh--is the clinic for our veterans. It is one of many such clinics in our country and is unacceptable. This is something one might see in a documentary about developing nations, not the United States of America. This RV, where our veterans are treated for serious medical conditions, is connected to a waiting room that is triple the size of the square footage of the mobile home. That is because the demand for care so greatly exceeds this subpar facility's ability to deliver health care to our veterans. In the waiting room there is a television set, but it is not plugged in and it doesn't have a remote. That is because VA rules say you must have a TV in the waiting room, but the rules don't stipulate that it must function. It sounds like a joke. We have to have a television, but we don't say it has to be plugged in. This is the current state of the VA, and this is what Congress is allowing when we fail to pass this needed legislation. I would like to say this is an isolated problem but there are veterans all over the country receiving health care under similar circumstances. For more than 10 years, our young men and women have returned from war in the Middle East. These young veterans are joining men and women who have served this Nation in uniform, defending our freedom in every corner of the globe. They deserve better than a mobile home. They deserve action, and they deserve it now. If we don't pass this bill, there will be consequences for people--America's heroes--who need help now. This is the VA portion, but it is also the military VA construction budget. If we fail to act, it will not just be our veterans who are hurt; it will also affect our Active-Duty military and our national security. We know there is a portion of the budget which goes for actually protecting our military construction, but what sometimes people forget is there is a human face to our military. Gen. Robert Rand recently took control of Global Strike, a position that is charged with maintaining our nuclear triad and first strike capabilities, but there are those in the Air Force who serve under General Rand. He needs the resources to maintain our nuclear ability, but without this legislation we cannot maintain his combat readiness, which includes basic needs such as housing for our soldiers and educating their children. I urge my fellow Senators to consider what is included in this legislation: family housing, schools, medical facilities for Active- Duty personnel and their families, and funding for the care of 6.9 million veterans. Let me add something to this. As a doctor, I am glad we also specifically provide for groundbreaking hepatitis C treatments and for modernizing the VA electronic medical records system. The Senate Appropriations Committee passed the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill by a bipartisan vote of 12 to 9, with all Republicans and 5 Democrats voting in favor. This is common sense. Congress has the duty to pass this legislation now, and the President has an obligation to sign it. We must honor our commitment to our military and to our veterans.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. I thank the chairman of the committee. Madam President, the challenge in speaking after so many others have on this agreement is that almost every angle has been addressed. But the advantage is that I have been able to learn what others have to say and perhaps introduce new ideas. I am actually struck that Democrats and Republicans agree. We all agree that the Iranian agreement is flawed, that it does not achieve the objectives originally defined by President Obama, and everyone is worried that the Iranians will use a portion of the $50 to $100 billion they receive as a result of this agreement to advance the cause of terrorism. What we do not agree on is whether or not the administration could have and can get a better deal. Ironically, Republicans have more faith in the President than the President's fellow Democrats do. Republicans think that if Barack Obama and John Kerry called them back up--showed leadership among our allies--that we can do better and Democrats think not. I continue to have more faith in the President and Secretary Kerry than my Democratic colleagues because typically the stronger party in a negotiation gets the better deal. It seems as if the United States and our allies were the stronger parties. Iran's economy is in terrible shape. The regime's survival is threatened by dissatisfaction with 25 years of a corrupt bureaucratic autocracy, with economic mismanagement. Iran needs to get $130 per barrel of oil to meet the government's obligations, and oil is far below that. Iran's trading partners are limited, and aside from this, the Iranian people want freedom. There is discontent with the regime. But far from the stronger party prevailing, this agreement concedes on the very goals that it sought to achieve. We pursued this agreement with the intention of ridding Iran of its nuclear program. Instead we have agreed to lift sanctions that have crippled Iran's economy and give immediate access to $60 billion, essentially bailing out a struggling regime. It is fair to ask: In return for what? According to the President and my colleagues who support this deal, we get the opportunity not to go to war, and all Iran had to do was simply agree to continue developing and running their nuclear program in a peaceful manner. But to quote Leon Wieseltier, a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute: This agreement was designed to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. If it does not prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons--and it seems uncontroversial to suggest that it does not guarantee such an outcome--then it does not solve the problem that it was designed to solve. And if it does not solve the problem that it was designed to solve, then it is itself not an alternative, is it? The status is still quo. How can it be the claim that this Iranian agreement protects the American people from the dangers of war when we are also told that the United States must provide more military support to our allies in the region because of this deal increasing the likelihood of war? Secretary Kerry acknowledged in a September 2 letter that, indeed, war is more likely: ``Iran's continued support for terrorist and proxy groups throughout the region, its propping up of the Assad regime in Syria, its efforts to undermine the stability of its regional neighbors, and the threat it poses to Israel'' are real concerns. He goes on to say, ``We have no illusion that this behavior will change following the implementation of the JCPOA.'' Why are we willingly, I ask, legitimizing a nuclear program of a country that we feel this way about or, worse yet, why are we willingly agreeing to lift sanctions, which gives Iran billions of dollars and an improved economy and therefore the extra resources with which they can buy and distribute conventional weapons, which Iran can now buy legally? Regarding the purpose of the conventional weapons, in the final hours of negotiations, the lifting of the embargo against the sale of conventional weapons and missiles was added to this deal. In just 5 years we lift the embargo against conventional weapons, and in 8 years we lift the embargo against ballistic missiles. Secretary Kerry has declared that this provision is a win. The terrible thing about this deal is that it is full of wins such as this. Iran's interest is advanced, and the rest of the world is less safe. This does not add up. We have the administration claiming that the regime is weak underneath our sanctions--and for that reason Rouhani was able to persuade Khamenei to come to the table for negotiations-- yet stating that Iran's opposition to lifting the arms embargo was too strong to resist. The country cannot be too strong and too weak at the same time. Furthermore, knowing that the Iranians have cheated on numerous previous nuclear agreements, why don't we have a stronger mechanism with which to punish them should they cheat? All this deal puts in place is the snapback. The hope is that reimposing sanctions on Iran will once more cripple their economy. The same sanctions that have been implemented over many years are expected to somehow immediately return to full strength. What is to say that countries such as Russia or China, which were initially reluctant to impose the sanctions on Iran, would agree to snap back should Iran cheat? Especially considering how much stronger Iran will be once their economy is given the chance to rebound, it seems more likely that these countries believe the economic advantages of lifting sanctions on Iran far outweigh the implications of a nuclear Iran. It has been stated one way or another by others, but I will discuss something that has not been discussed in relation to the Iranian agreement but which I am surprised is not of greater concern to Democrats. In its environmental impact statement issued in February 2014, the State Department estimated that the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would ultimately carry 830,000 barrels of oil daily, could increase emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases by 1.3 to 27.4 million metric tons annually. Based on these calculations, President Obama has denied Americans a chance to expand our energy independence and to in turn create 40,000 direct jobs and many more indirect. If this deal goes through--the Iranian deal--the Iranian oil minister stated that Iran could send 500,000 barrels of oil per day to the market immediately upon easing the sanctions and up to 1 million barrels of oil per day within 6 months. According to an estimate by a DC think tank, if Iran increases their oil production by this much, it will release 156 million more metric tons of carbon dioxide per day. Wait a second. If we build the Keystone XL Pipeline, we may have 1.3 million metric tons. We can't do that because of greenhouse gases. But the Iranian agreement, which the President said has to occur, will increase greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 156 million metric tons--over 100 times more. If climate change is the greatest threat to the United States, even greater than a nuclear Iran, it seems as though the President has said he is willing to accept that danger in order to give the Iranians this deal. Well, I return to where I started. I ask my Democratic Senate colleagues not to have such low expectations of the President and to demand a better deal for the American people. I stand by the assertion that the alternative to this bad deal is not war, but a better deal. I am confident that our Nation can stand from a position of power and negotiate the deal we set out to achieve. Thank you, Madam President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I am a physician, a doctor. For the last 25 years, I have worked in hospitals for the uninsured. So when my friend from California mentions the need to ensure access for those who might not otherwise afford it, that is what I have been attempting to do in my medical practice for the last 25 years. As a practicing physician, one of the first things you are taught in medical school is ``first, do no harm.'' Tragically, these videos demonstrate that some do not share that perspective. When patients see their doctors, they want an honest, objective opinion. But what the video suggests is that Planned Parenthood puts profits and special interests before the women who call on them for their advice.

Mr. CASSIDY. Oh, is it 5:30 now? I am sorry. I ask unanimous consent for another 2 minutes?

Mr. CASSIDY. Now, again, for 30 years, I have been working to get health care for folks, and I think it is important we ensure access for women to health care. Currently, Planned Parenthood gets $500 million in Federal funding per year. If we redirect this funding to the community health centers, which I have worked with for 30 years, their health can be better served. There are two Planned Parenthood facilities in Louisiana, and there are 160 community health centers. The two Planned Parenthood offices, one in New Orleans and one in Baton Rouge, are in the southeastern portion of the State. The community health centers are scattered all over the State, and, again, there are 160 of those. For every American who is troubled by these videos, we should be equally troubled by the fact that the Planned Parenthood provision of health care is geographically centered in some areas but not as broadly as the community health centers. I will also point out, as a physician, that the Planned Parenthood model of care is outdated. We now talk about clinics which are medical homes, not which are siloed into only the provision of birth control pills and, in the case of Planned Parenthood, abortion. The community health centers can provide the whole range of services including those for diabetes, hypertension, et cetera. It is time for Congress to act. I ask my colleagues to support this redistribution of money, sending it closer to where those patients live, to better ensure a woman's access to health care, and to address the troubling issues raised by these videos. I yield back.

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, last week a terrible tragedy occurred in Lafayette, LA, when a mentally ill gunman opened fire in a movie theater filled with innocent people. Jillian Johnson was a talented artist, successful entrepreneur, and an active member of the Lafayette community. Jillian played in a local all-female band, co-owned a gift and toy shop, and often organized community projects that benefited all. She was a kind and charitable soul, described by her husband as a loving friend, daughter, sister, and wife. Mayci Breaux was an incredible young lady with a bright future ahead of her. A student of Louisiana State University, Mayci was studying to be a medical radiology technician and was engaged to her high school sweetheart, planning to marry after she graduated. Mayci worked at a local fashion boutique, where her customers and coworkers remember her generous smile and wonderful optimism. These two women exemplify the kindness and essence of the Lafayette community. Although they were taken from us far too quickly, their memories live on. Let's also take a moment to thank the heroes in this tragedy--the Lafayette police, Acadian Ambulance, the employees of the Grand 16 movie theater, and other first responders who acted bravely and quickly to stop the shooter and aid the injured. We are grateful for their service, and we honor them today. I also acknowledge by name Jena Meaux and Ali Martin. Their quick thinking and courageousness saved lives when they crawled across the movie theater floor to pull the fire alarm to alert authorities. Lafayette and Louisiana are resilient. In times of tragedy and pain, we come together to support and care for one another. The love we have for each other, even in the darkest of times, will help Lafayette, our State, and our community recover. The events that transpired in Lafayette last week are a reminder of the long road we must take to reform our mental health system. Too many innocent lives are being taken from us in senseless attacks in movie theaters, schools, churches, and other places where we should feel safe. The common denominator in these tragedies is all too often untreated mental illness. As public servants, we should seek to keep the public safe, but our mental health system is badly broken and fails to do so, and reforms are coming too slowly. It doesn't make sense that parents caring for a mentally ill child cannot be part of medical decisionmaking that could prevent horrendous tragedies like these. I can go down the list of reforms that need to be made to improve our mental health system. I am working with my good friend Senator Chris Murphy on legislation that will help reform our mental health system and make it easier for those in need to get the help that could potentially avert a future tragedy like this. I finish by saying once more that our thoughts and prayers are with the families and loved ones of Jillian and Mayci and all those wounded who are suffering. May they know God's comfort at a time when it may be otherwise impossible for them to feel comforted. I yield to my fellow Senator and good friend, Senator Vitter.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I thank the chairman. This week, the VA committee passed out of committee S. 627, which establishes guidelines for the Secretary to deny bonuses to employees who have violated VA policy or law. It also ensures information on reprimands will be kept in the employee's permanent record. Our veterans deserve this bill. When the VA scandal erupted in Phoenix last year, then-VA Secretary Eric Shinseki rescinded the performance award given in 2013 to the career senior executive who ran this Phoenix VA health care hospital--a bonus that the Department said was awarded because of an administrative error. The employee appealed and a Federal judge directed the VA to repay the bonus despite the fact that the employee had improperly accepted more than $13,000 in gifts from a lobbyist and failed to report them and manipulated data to conceal excessive wait times for veterans seeking health care. The judge determined, however, that the VA did not have the authority to rescind her bonus. This is why many veterans do not trust the VA. Here is an administrator who, again, took $13,000 in gifts from a lobbyist, did not report them, manipulated data and, nonetheless, gets a bonus. This is, by the way, while veterans were allegedly dying prematurely because of the care not given at this facility. If we want to improve the VA system, we need to focus on the quality of the workforce. Workforce morale was seriously affected by those who abused their authority and nonetheless received bonuses or those who do not have information on reprimands retained in their permanent record, meaning it is that much harder to dismiss those employees who are not good. How does this incentivize honest workers to do a better job if we reward those who do not do good jobs? This is a commonsense solution that the American people will view as a signal that Congress is serious about improving veterans health care. In addition, S. 1082, the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability Act, a bill introduced by Senators Rubio and Johnson, would give the VA Secretary more flexibility to remove corrupt or poor-performing employees, not just top officials. The bill would expand the authority of the 2014 Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act to the entire workforce of the VA, which has made it easier to remove senior executives for wrongdoing. This bill would also extend the probationary period for new VA employees. A veteran once told me that his perception was that the VA system was run for the benefit of employees, not for the benefit of the veteran who is the patient. This is incredibly unfair to the dedicated VA employees. But on the other hand, giving bonuses to those such as this Phoenix VA supervisor makes it understandable why he has this perception. The legislation I have spoken of today helps restore accountability to the VA system so that all will know that the VA is run first, foremost, and always for the veterans seen there as patients. I yield the floor to my colleague Senator Rounds.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, in a few short weeks an inspirational military leader will retire after serving his country proudly for over 35 years. Today I recognize and commend Air Force Lt. Gen. Noel T. ``Tom'' Jones for his exceptional leadership and service over those 35 years, most recently as the vice commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe, Ramstein Air Base, Germany. Born to Margaret and Lem Jones, General Jones was no stranger to military service. His father was an F-4 fighter pilot in the U.S. Air Force and retired after 23 years as a lieutenant colonel. His older brother, Lem Jones, Jr., served in the U.S. Army and retired as a major. The second oldest son, Ron Jones, served as an enlisted member in the U.S. Air Force for 6 years. Finally, General Jones' younger brother, James ``Rev'' Jones, recently retired as a major general after a distinguished career as an Air Force fighter pilot as well. In fact, at one point in time, all four Jones boys were serving in the military at the same time. All told, General Jones moved around to nine different States or countries before even entering college. With a calling to serve and fly like his father, General Jones was commissioned in 1980 following graduation from the U.S. Air Force Academy with a bachelor of science degree in political science. He completed undergraduate pilot training in 1981 and began a long career flying the F-16 Fighting Falcon under the call sign ``Honez.'' During his career, he served as an instructor pilot and operations officer as well as holding numerous operational command positions. An outstanding leader throughout his distinguished career, General Jones' service has spanned the country with assignments in 12 States and across the world with tours at Torrejon Air Base, Spain, Kunsan Air Base, South Korea, Baghdad, Iraq, and Ramstein Air Base, Germany. He has commanded a fighter squadron, operations group, and a fighter wing. Additionally, General Jones commanded the 332nd Expeditionary Wing at Ahmed Al Jaber Air Base, Kuwait, during Operation Iraqi Freedom and served for a year in Iraq as the director of strategic plans and assessment for U.S. Forces-Iraq. General Jones has also held staff assignments at North American Aerospace Defense Command, Air Combat Command, and the National Security Agency. Prior to his current assignment, he was the director, operational capability requirements, deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and requirements, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, DC. In his current capacity, General Jones serves as the vice commander, U.S. Air Forces in Europe, the air component to U.S. European Command and U.S. Africa Command. The major command is responsible for providing full-spectrum warfighting capabilities to the combatant commanders throughout the entire area of responsibility, which encompasses 104 countries in Europe, Africa, Asia and the Middle East, the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans, and possesses more than a quarter of the world's population and more than a quarter of the world's gross domestic product. General Jones is a command pilot with more than 3,500 flying hours, including combat sorties over Iraq in operations Southern Watch, Desert Fox and Iraqi Freedom. His military decorations include the Air Force Distinguished Service Medal, Defense Superior Service Medal with oak leaf cluster, Legion of Merit with two oak leaf clusters, and Bronze Star Medal, among many others. Mr. President, Lt. Gen. Tom ``Honez'' Jones epitomizes the Air Force core values of integrity, service, and excellence, and has dedicated his life to serving our Nation. I am proud to say he plans to retire with the rest of the extended Jones Family in Coushatta, LA. Today I join my colleagues in honoring his admirable service to our Nation and all the airmen, sailors, soldiers, marines, and civilians, who have served alongside him. We offer our heartfelt appreciation to Tom, his wife Debbie, and their children, Tommy and Danielle, and a hearty congratulation on his retirement from the U.S. Air Force.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Vitter's amendment No. 1473, which requires the Army to maintain no fewer than 32 brigade combat teams, which are also referred to as BCTs. I support this amendment because cutting the brigade combat teams is cutting the core of the Army's structure and their ability to perform their mission. This amendment requires the Army to maintain a brigade combat team level of 32. Currently, the Army is planning on cutting these to 30 and to continue cutting to a point where we will have a hollow force. This is a short-sighted approach to a bigger problem. First, what the amendment says is that the Secretary shall give priority under this paragraph to be carried out as funding or appropriations become available. Secondly, nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede the Army's manning of brigade combat teams at designated levels, and it requires congressional defense committees to have a report on the current manning of each brigade combat team of the Army. It also ensures that the Army National Guard brigade combat teams are maintained at 26, and this accounts for the deactivation of two Air National Guard brigade combat teams previously agreed to. You may ask, Why do we need 32 brigade combat teams? At the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, we had 48 brigade combat teams. If we have noticed, in the Middle East, it is getting worse, not better. This is not to say that we will commit these troops, but it will be to say that we shall maintain our readiness. Next, the Army's key weapon system is the brigade combat team. This amendment protects that key weapon from those cuts. Lastly, reducing brigade combat teams does not--I emphasize, does not--make existing brigade combat teams more ready. It wears them out. If you have fewer teams, they are deployed more often in whatever activity they are deployed to, and that stretches that manpower and womanpower potentially to the break. Under this, with the higher level of force, there is less stress upon those who are there maintaining their readiness. In total, this amendment requires the Army to take a closer look at their strategy and risk, forcing the Army to think long term instead of just cutting the most crucial part of our force, which is the people, the human capital, our fellow citizens. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, the Supreme Court is about to rule on King v. Burwell. This decision is a question of a plain reading of the law, which is that subsidies shall only be given to those who reside in States which have established State exchanges. That is the plain reading of the law. The administration maintains that, no, ``States'' doesn't mean ``States,'' but, rather, it can be an exchange set up either by the State or the Federal Government. Presuming the Supreme Court decides that a plain reading of the law is correct--that for a resident of a State to receive a subsidy, they have to reside in a State that has established an exchange--there are 37 States in which those currently receiving subsidies will lose their subsidies. This is important because under ObamaCare we have seen a dramatic increase in the cost of health insurance premiums. So many people who formerly would have been able to afford an insurance premium no longer can without the subsidy. What this means for that person in a State such as Louisiana is there will be someone in the middle of chemotherapy who can no longer afford their insurance without a subsidy. The insurance has been made so high because of ObamaCare that that patient is no longer able to afford her insurance and she is at risk of losing her coverage because the administration illegally implemented the law. This is where we are going into the Supreme Court decision. Let me kind of now start on a different tack. The President's health care law, ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act, has continued to be singularly unpopular. A recent ABC poll showed that only 39 percent of Americans approved of the law. That is an alltime low--10 percent lower than it has been. One can ask why it would be unpopular and why it would be particularly unpopular now. I think the reason it is unpopular in general is that ObamaCare is a coercive Federal Government program, that if you don't bend your will to the Federal Government, the Federal Government will penalize you. That is not how Americans view their relationship to the Federal Government. We don't expect the government to tell us what to do. There might be income taxes, which we pay, and there will be drafts in times of war, such as World War II, but in general, aside from those two things, the Federal Government should just stay out of our lives. In this case--ObamaCare--the Federal Government gets right in the middle of that which is most personal, and that is our health care. I think the reason ObamaCare is particularly unpopular now is because of the premium increases that have resulted because of ObamaCare. Here are some headlines: CNN, ``Obamacare sticker shock: Big rate hikes proposed for 2016''; AP, ``Many health insurers go big with initial 2016 rate requests''; AP again, ``8 Minnesota Health Plans Propose Big Premium Hikes for 2016''; the New York Times, ``In Vermont, Frustrations Mount Over Affordable Care Act''; and the Washington Post, ``Almost half of Obamacare exchanges face financial struggles in the future.'' In my own State, insurers are asking for 20 percent increases, and this is on top of premium increases that have resulted from the previous few years. Indeed, the President likes to speak about how health care costs under ObamaCare have mitigated--health care costs. Actually, that began in 2007 before ObamaCare passed. But since ObamaCare passed, it has been true. Health care costs have not risen as they did in the past. Health insurance costs have gone up dramatically. The remarkable story of ObamaCare is that there is now no relationship between health insurance cost and health care cost. The insurance companies, with the regulations imposed by ObamaCare, are charging far more for insurance than one would expect because of the health care costs. Of course, the President chooses to speak of the cost of care, not the cost of premiums, but for the average person, it is the cost of premiums which is making her so frustrated with this law. That brings us back to King v. Burwell. At this point, I am offering today, along with several original cosponsors, what we call the Patient Freedom Act. We give patients the power which ObamaCare took from them, and we give them the power by lowering the cost. We lower the cost by eliminating the mandates that are part of ObamaCare. We return power over insurance to the States, with the rationale that she who governs best governs closest to those who are governed. The insurance commissioner in that State should be able to decide what the person in their State wishes to have for their policy, not a Washington bureaucrat. And we give patients knowledge. We give them price transparency. They should know the cost of something that is ordered for them before they have the procedure performed as opposed to learning afterward. We give them portability, and we give them protection against preexisting conditions. I and others--I think the Presiding Officer as well--have campaigned for several cycles that we were going to repeal and replace ObamaCare. In this situation, the Supreme Court will repeal a portion of ObamaCare--not all but a portion--in 37 States, and this is the plan that will replace that portion of ObamaCare which is repealed. We like to look at it this way. We begin to plant the seeds. Now, in those 37 States, those 8 million people affected by the Obama administration's illegal implementation of the subsidy law--we make it better for them. We plant the seeds so that over time other aspects and eventually the entirety of ObamaCare will be replaced with something which gives the patient the power as opposed to a Washington bureaucrat. Let me lay out what we do. King v. Burwell goes against the administration. The Supreme Court rules that the law has been implemented illegally. States will then have a choice: They can either establish a State exchange if they wish for the status quo of ObamaCare, the State can do nothing, which means in that State all of ObamaCare goes away for the private insurance market, or they can choose the Patient Freedom Act, which is the market-based reform that we think gives the patient the power and not the bureaucrat. Now let me compare the two. I mentioned how under the Patient Freedom Act costs are lowered by repealing mandates. For example, under ObamaCare there is an individual mandate with a coercive penalty. The Patient Freedom Act does not have one. There is an employer mandate penalty. Yes, under ObamaCare the employer is penalized; under the Patient Freedom Act, no. There is the Federal essential health benefits mandate. Under ObamaCare, a Washington bureaucrat tells somebody that which they must purchase. In the Patient Freedom Act, we return that to the State insurance commissioner. We do not have these mandates. I can go on down the list, but the reality is that ObamaCare, coercive mandates; the Patient Freedom Act, no. The money we make available to the States we take from the tax credits that ObamaCare would give to those in the State--those who are eligible and signed up--we take the Medicaid funding that would be available in the State for Medicaid expansion, and we combine those two for the total allocation that will go to that State. Now, some would say: Wait a second. The Federal Government should not be in the business of helping people with health insurance. I say the Federal Government is deeply in that business already. If you look under public insurance, there is Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, VA, TRICARE, and on and on where the Federal Government is providing health care benefits for a substantial portion--over 25 percent--of Americans. These are those Americans who get their insurance through the employer- sponsored insurance, where the employer and the employee can contribute to their insurance but they get a tax break on the purchase. That tax break averages about $1,700. We are speaking about that remaining group who purchases their insurance for themselves. We lower their cost by equalizing the tax treatment between the two. It is the same sort of tax break that those with the employer-sponsored insurance receive. We will now offer that same tax break to these folks and in so doing achieve that conservative goal of equalizing the tax treatment of those purchasing employer-sponsored insurance as opposed to purchasing on their own. The funding goes to the patient. I am a doctor. I have been working in a public hospital system for 25 years. I learned working as a physician in both the private setting but also principally in the public hospital setting that whoever controls the dollar has the power. That makes no sense whatsoever. It is one of the major flaws in ObamaCare. Since these subsidies are based upon estimated earnings that are later reconciled through tax returns, Americans are facing onerous tax liabilities and penalties as a consequence. Let me explain further how this wage-lock occurs, because increasingly Americans are going to be running into this problem. Let me give you an example. Last year, the least expensive premium for a silver plan to cover a 50-year-old individual in Aroostook County, ME, cost $6,300 through an Affordable Care Act exchange. But that, obviously, is not what most individuals pay. Instead, they receive a subsidy that phases out based on their estimated income. But again, the subsidy completely disappears at a sharp cliff at 400 percent of the Federal poverty level. An individual whose estimated income is just less than this cliff, say, one that is earning $46,500, will pay 9.5 percent of his or her income, or $4,370, for insurance and the rest is covered by the Federal tax credits. But if it turns out that this individual actually made a bit more than 400 percent of the Federal poverty level--let's say the individual made $47,000--then, he or she would be on the hook for the entire $6,300 premium. In other words, a 50-year-old who makes just $500 more than he or she estimated will have to pay $2,000 more at tax time for health insurance in the exchange. Think about what this means for a self-employed individual whose income fluctuates not only from year to year but from month to month. This is a financial nightmare to try to figure out. This cliff does not just affect individuals who get their coverage through the ACA. Cliffs appear over and over in the design of the subsidies under ObamaCare, and couples and families will face them at different levels of income as their household size changes. What will these bait-and-switch health insurance premiums do to incentives to work harder, to earn more, to accept promotions? If you accept a promotion at work and then your income goes over that magic 400 percent of poverty threshold, you are going to lose your entire subsidy. You might well decide to turn down that raise at work or that opportunity to be promoted to a better job. What kind of system has been designed to discourage people from moving ahead in the workplace? In the State of Maine, so far we have learned that at least 1,000 Maine families have lost their subsidies completely because they were in that situation where their income went over that threshold. Another 1,000 Mainers are finding out that they are losing part of their subsidy and are going to be on the hook for paying more money. I will say to my colleagues that you are going to start hearing this in your States, and it particularly is going to affect people who are self-employed and who have to estimate what their income is going to be. Through no fault of their own--unless they are going to turn down work--they may well go over the threshold amount and lose their subsidy altogether. Remember, it takes just $1 in additional earnings at the 400 percent of poverty level to lose your subsidy altogether. Let me give you an example of a Maine couple who contacted my office. They discovered to their horror that when they filed their taxes, they had earned more than the threshold and they owed $13,000 to the IRS for the health insurance they received through the ObamaCare exchange, on top of the $4,000 that they had been told their exchange coverage would cost. Imagine finding out that because you worked a little harder, because you earned a bit more money, you now unexpectedly owe an extra $13,000 to the IRS because you lost your subsidy. The Patient Freedom Act would put an end to the bait-and-switch premiums that are built into the ObamaCare exchanges. One of the reasons I opposed the Affordable Care Act was that there was nothing affordable about it. I predicted at the time that it would lead to fewer choices and higher insurance costs for many middle-income Americans and small businesses. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell would prompt Congress to protect those who would lose their subsidies, but it would also provide the opportunity to give States the option to replace the Affordable Care Act's poorly crafted mandates with patient-directed reforms that contain costs, provide more choices, and still provide assistance to those who need it most. The Patient Freedom Act does exactly that. I urge my colleagues to support it. Now, if it is a bureaucrat who controls that dollar, then the bureaucrat will dictate the type of facility the patient is seen in. If the patient controls the dollar, the hospitals are going to compete for her business, and she dictates the type of facility in which she is seen. So in the Patient Freedom Act, the money goes directly to the patient. It can go through the State. The money can be granted to the State on a per-patient enrolled grant type; and in so doing, the State would then distribute--and there are advantages for the State to do the distribution--or, if the State does not want that responsibility, it can be a Federal tax credit that goes into a health savings account that the patient controls. But either way, the patient controls the dollar. The patient has the power, not a bureaucrat. Here is a brief example of how it will work: Here is the health savings deposit that goes into a health savings account. There will be some reforms in the bill that allow the patient to either use it as her contribution--as the employee's contribution on a employer-sponsored plan. She can directly contract with a provider network. She can purchase commercial insurance or, if she does nothing, the State has the option of creating a system, where someone is enrolled unless they choose not to be. Again, I am going to call upon my experience as a physician. Think of a person who might be schizophrenic, homeless, living beneath a bridge. He is never going to do what ObamaCare mandates, which is to get on the Internet and fill out a 16-page form. It is just not going to happen. I have been there, I have done that. I have been in the ER in the middle of the night when a patient has come in with some acute medical or trauma condition. Under this system, though, the State could have this person enrolled unless they choose not to be. So with the health savings account, they would have first-dollar coverage for a visit should they decide to go into an outpatient clinic for a foot that was infected. If they have some major issue and they are brought to the hospital, the catastrophic policy would then give them the coverage for that hospitalization but also protect the hospital, the doctors, and other providers from taking a total loss-- which, by the way, society ends up paying for--because they have no coverage for that hospitalization. So with this system, we can achieve higher enrollments than are achieved under ObamaCare. Last, let me talk about one more way in which we think patients will have the power. One, they will have power portability. Every year, in an open enrollment season, if the patient wishes to change plans, she may, without penalty. Secondly, she will be protected against preexisting conditions. The only rating that will be required for premiums will be for geography and age. A 57-year-old will get a bigger credit than a 20-year-old. But aside from age and, again, geographic-- because it is more expensive to receive care in Manhattan, NY, than Manhattan, KS--that will be the only differences allowed. Lastly, there will be the power of price transparency. Currently, a woman goes in with her daughter, the doctor orders a CT scan, and the patient has no clue what the cost of that CT scan is. Now, it can be anywhere from $250 to $2,500 or more. I pick those numbers because the LA Times had an article a couple years ago, they found that the difference in cash price for CT scans was $250 to $2,500. The only way someone could know is if they were an investigative reporter and able to find out, not if you are a mom with a sick child who needed a CT scan. For me, it is going to be great when the mother can take her smart phone, scan a QR code, and pull up something which says: CT scan $250 here, $2,500 there. I am going to make my decision based on some combination of cost, quality, and convenience. I will pick based upon my values on where to go. It is not a Washington bureaucrat, it is a mother who is going to make that decision. Again, continuous coverage protects those with preexisting conditions, and we mentioned the price transparency. In this way, Republicans will give States the option to choose. Again, they can stay in ObamaCare if they want. They have that option now. They can do nothing, and it goes away if the Supreme Court rules that the subsidies have been implemented illegally or they can go with the Patient Freedom Act--the Patient Freedom Act--which gives patients the power by lowering costs, lowering the cost by eliminating mandates, returning power over insurance back to the commissioners who govern closest to those who actually will be using the insurance, and then giving the patient the power of portability, protection against preexisting conditions, and the power of price transparency.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, the Supreme Court is about to rule on King v. Burwell. This decision is a question of a plain reading of the law, which is that subsidies shall only be given to those who reside in States which have established State exchanges. That is the plain reading of the law. The administration maintains that, no, ``States'' doesn't mean ``States,'' but, rather, it can be an exchange set up either by the State or the Federal Government. Presuming the Supreme Court decides that a plain reading of the law is correct--that for a resident of a State to receive a subsidy, they have to reside in a State that has established an exchange--there are 37 States in which those currently receiving subsidies will lose their subsidies. This is important because under ObamaCare we have seen a dramatic increase in the cost of health insurance premiums. So many people who formerly would have been able to afford an insurance premium no longer can without the subsidy. What this means for that person in a State such as Louisiana is there will be someone in the middle of chemotherapy who can no longer afford their insurance without a subsidy. The insurance has been made so high because of ObamaCare that that patient is no longer able to afford her insurance and she is at risk of losing her coverage because the administration illegally implemented the law. This is where we are going into the Supreme Court decision. Let me kind of now start on a different tack. The President's health care law, ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act, has continued to be singularly unpopular. A recent ABC poll showed that only 39 percent of Americans approved of the law. That is an alltime low--10 percent lower than it has been. One can ask why it would be unpopular and why it would be particularly unpopular now. I think the reason it is unpopular in general is that ObamaCare is a coercive Federal Government program, that if you don't bend your will to the Federal Government, the Federal Government will penalize you. That is not how Americans view their relationship to the Federal Government. We don't expect the government to tell us what to do. There might be income taxes, which we pay, and there will be drafts in times of war, such as World War II, but in general, aside from those two things, the Federal Government should just stay out of our lives. In this case--ObamaCare--the Federal Government gets right in the middle of that which is most personal, and that is our health care. I think the reason ObamaCare is particularly unpopular now is because of the premium increases that have resulted because of ObamaCare. Here are some headlines: CNN, ``Obamacare sticker shock: Big rate hikes proposed for 2016''; AP, ``Many health insurers go big with initial 2016 rate requests''; AP again, ``8 Minnesota Health Plans Propose Big Premium Hikes for 2016''; the New York Times, ``In Vermont, Frustrations Mount Over Affordable Care Act''; and the Washington Post, ``Almost half of Obamacare exchanges face financial struggles in the future.'' In my own State, insurers are asking for 20 percent increases, and this is on top of premium increases that have resulted from the previous few years. Indeed, the President likes to speak about how health care costs under ObamaCare have mitigated--health care costs. Actually, that began in 2007 before ObamaCare passed. But since ObamaCare passed, it has been true. Health care costs have not risen as they did in the past. Health insurance costs have gone up dramatically. The remarkable story of ObamaCare is that there is now no relationship between health insurance cost and health care cost. The insurance companies, with the regulations imposed by ObamaCare, are charging far more for insurance than one would expect because of the health care costs. Of course, the President chooses to speak of the cost of care, not the cost of premiums, but for the average person, it is the cost of premiums which is making her so frustrated with this law. That brings us back to King v. Burwell. At this point, I am offering today, along with several original cosponsors, what we call the Patient Freedom Act. We give patients the power which ObamaCare took from them, and we give them the power by lowering the cost. We lower the cost by eliminating the mandates that are part of ObamaCare. We return power over insurance to the States, with the rationale that she who governs best governs closest to those who are governed. The insurance commissioner in that State should be able to decide what the person in their State wishes to have for their policy, not a Washington bureaucrat. And we give patients knowledge. We give them price transparency. They should know the cost of something that is ordered for them before they have the procedure performed as opposed to learning afterward. We give them portability, and we give them protection against preexisting conditions. I and others--I think the Presiding Officer as well--have campaigned for several cycles that we were going to repeal and replace ObamaCare. In this situation, the Supreme Court will repeal a portion of ObamaCare--not all but a portion--in 37 States, and this is the plan that will replace that portion of ObamaCare which is repealed. We like to look at it this way. We begin to plant the seeds. Now, in those 37 States, those 8 million people affected by the Obama administration's illegal implementation of the subsidy law--we make it better for them. We plant the seeds so that over time other aspects and eventually the entirety of ObamaCare will be replaced with something which gives the patient the power as opposed to a Washington bureaucrat. Let me lay out what we do. King v. Burwell goes against the administration. The Supreme Court rules that the law has been implemented illegally. States will then have a choice: They can either establish a State exchange if they wish for the status quo of ObamaCare, the State can do nothing, which means in that State all of ObamaCare goes away for the private insurance market, or they can choose the Patient Freedom Act, which is the market-based reform that we think gives the patient the power and not the bureaucrat. Now let me compare the two. I mentioned how under the Patient Freedom Act costs are lowered by repealing mandates. For example, under ObamaCare there is an individual mandate with a coercive penalty. The Patient Freedom Act does not have one. There is an employer mandate penalty. Yes, under ObamaCare the employer is penalized; under the Patient Freedom Act, no. There is the Federal essential health benefits mandate. Under ObamaCare, a Washington bureaucrat tells somebody that which they must purchase. In the Patient Freedom Act, we return that to the State insurance commissioner. We do not have these mandates. I can go on down the list, but the reality is that ObamaCare, coercive mandates; the Patient Freedom Act, no. The money we make available to the States we take from the tax credits that ObamaCare would give to those in the State--those who are eligible and signed up--we take the Medicaid funding that would be available in the State for Medicaid expansion, and we combine those two for the total allocation that will go to that State. Now, some would say: Wait a second. The Federal Government should not be in the business of helping people with health insurance. I say the Federal Government is deeply in that business already. If you look under public insurance, there is Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, VA, TRICARE, and on and on where the Federal Government is providing health care benefits for a substantial portion--over 25 percent--of Americans. These are those Americans who get their insurance through the employer- sponsored insurance, where the employer and the employee can contribute to their insurance but they get a tax break on the purchase. That tax break averages about $1,700. We are speaking about that remaining group who purchases their insurance for themselves. We lower their cost by equalizing the tax treatment between the two. It is the same sort of tax break that those with the employer-sponsored insurance receive. We will now offer that same tax break to these folks and in so doing achieve that conservative goal of equalizing the tax treatment of those purchasing employer-sponsored insurance as opposed to purchasing on their own. The funding goes to the patient. I am a doctor. I have been working in a public hospital system for 25 years. I learned working as a physician in both the private setting but also principally in the public hospital setting that whoever controls the dollar has the power. That makes no sense whatsoever. It is one of the major flaws in ObamaCare. Since these subsidies are based upon estimated earnings that are later reconciled through tax returns, Americans are facing onerous tax liabilities and penalties as a consequence. Let me explain further how this wage-lock occurs, because increasingly Americans are going to be running into this problem. Let me give you an example. Last year, the least expensive premium for a silver plan to cover a 50-year-old individual in Aroostook County, ME, cost $6,300 through an Affordable Care Act exchange. But that, obviously, is not what most individuals pay. Instead, they receive a subsidy that phases out based on their estimated income. But again, the subsidy completely disappears at a sharp cliff at 400 percent of the Federal poverty level. An individual whose estimated income is just less than this cliff, say, one that is earning $46,500, will pay 9.5 percent of his or her income, or $4,370, for insurance and the rest is covered by the Federal tax credits. But if it turns out that this individual actually made a bit more than 400 percent of the Federal poverty level--let's say the individual made $47,000--then, he or she would be on the hook for the entire $6,300 premium. In other words, a 50-year-old who makes just $500 more than he or she estimated will have to pay $2,000 more at tax time for health insurance in the exchange. Think about what this means for a self-employed individual whose income fluctuates not only from year to year but from month to month. This is a financial nightmare to try to figure out. This cliff does not just affect individuals who get their coverage through the ACA. Cliffs appear over and over in the design of the subsidies under ObamaCare, and couples and families will face them at different levels of income as their household size changes. What will these bait-and-switch health insurance premiums do to incentives to work harder, to earn more, to accept promotions? If you accept a promotion at work and then your income goes over that magic 400 percent of poverty threshold, you are going to lose your entire subsidy. You might well decide to turn down that raise at work or that opportunity to be promoted to a better job. What kind of system has been designed to discourage people from moving ahead in the workplace? In the State of Maine, so far we have learned that at least 1,000 Maine families have lost their subsidies completely because they were in that situation where their income went over that threshold. Another 1,000 Mainers are finding out that they are losing part of their subsidy and are going to be on the hook for paying more money. I will say to my colleagues that you are going to start hearing this in your States, and it particularly is going to affect people who are self-employed and who have to estimate what their income is going to be. Through no fault of their own--unless they are going to turn down work--they may well go over the threshold amount and lose their subsidy altogether. Remember, it takes just $1 in additional earnings at the 400 percent of poverty level to lose your subsidy altogether. Let me give you an example of a Maine couple who contacted my office. They discovered to their horror that when they filed their taxes, they had earned more than the threshold and they owed $13,000 to the IRS for the health insurance they received through the ObamaCare exchange, on top of the $4,000 that they had been told their exchange coverage would cost. Imagine finding out that because you worked a little harder, because you earned a bit more money, you now unexpectedly owe an extra $13,000 to the IRS because you lost your subsidy. The Patient Freedom Act would put an end to the bait-and-switch premiums that are built into the ObamaCare exchanges. One of the reasons I opposed the Affordable Care Act was that there was nothing affordable about it. I predicted at the time that it would lead to fewer choices and higher insurance costs for many middle-income Americans and small businesses. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell would prompt Congress to protect those who would lose their subsidies, but it would also provide the opportunity to give States the option to replace the Affordable Care Act's poorly crafted mandates with patient-directed reforms that contain costs, provide more choices, and still provide assistance to those who need it most. The Patient Freedom Act does exactly that. I urge my colleagues to support it. Now, if it is a bureaucrat who controls that dollar, then the bureaucrat will dictate the type of facility the patient is seen in. If the patient controls the dollar, the hospitals are going to compete for her business, and she dictates the type of facility in which she is seen. So in the Patient Freedom Act, the money goes directly to the patient. It can go through the State. The money can be granted to the State on a per-patient enrolled grant type; and in so doing, the State would then distribute--and there are advantages for the State to do the distribution--or, if the State does not want that responsibility, it can be a Federal tax credit that goes into a health savings account that the patient controls. But either way, the patient controls the dollar. The patient has the power, not a bureaucrat. Here is a brief example of how it will work: Here is the health savings deposit that goes into a health savings account. There will be some reforms in the bill that allow the patient to either use it as her contribution--as the employee's contribution on a employer-sponsored plan. She can directly contract with a provider network. She can purchase commercial insurance or, if she does nothing, the State has the option of creating a system, where someone is enrolled unless they choose not to be. Again, I am going to call upon my experience as a physician. Think of a person who might be schizophrenic, homeless, living beneath a bridge. He is never going to do what ObamaCare mandates, which is to get on the Internet and fill out a 16-page form. It is just not going to happen. I have been there, I have done that. I have been in the ER in the middle of the night when a patient has come in with some acute medical or trauma condition. Under this system, though, the State could have this person enrolled unless they choose not to be. So with the health savings account, they would have first-dollar coverage for a visit should they decide to go into an outpatient clinic for a foot that was infected. If they have some major issue and they are brought to the hospital, the catastrophic policy would then give them the coverage for that hospitalization but also protect the hospital, the doctors, and other providers from taking a total loss-- which, by the way, society ends up paying for--because they have no coverage for that hospitalization. So with this system, we can achieve higher enrollments than are achieved under ObamaCare. Last, let me talk about one more way in which we think patients will have the power. One, they will have power portability. Every year, in an open enrollment season, if the patient wishes to change plans, she may, without penalty. Secondly, she will be protected against preexisting conditions. The only rating that will be required for premiums will be for geography and age. A 57-year-old will get a bigger credit than a 20-year-old. But aside from age and, again, geographic-- because it is more expensive to receive care in Manhattan, NY, than Manhattan, KS--that will be the only differences allowed. Lastly, there will be the power of price transparency. Currently, a woman goes in with her daughter, the doctor orders a CT scan, and the patient has no clue what the cost of that CT scan is. Now, it can be anywhere from $250 to $2,500 or more. I pick those numbers because the LA Times had an article a couple years ago, they found that the difference in cash price for CT scans was $250 to $2,500. The only way someone could know is if they were an investigative reporter and able to find out, not if you are a mom with a sick child who needed a CT scan. For me, it is going to be great when the mother can take her smart phone, scan a QR code, and pull up something which says: CT scan $250 here, $2,500 there. I am going to make my decision based on some combination of cost, quality, and convenience. I will pick based upon my values on where to go. It is not a Washington bureaucrat, it is a mother who is going to make that decision. Again, continuous coverage protects those with preexisting conditions, and we mentioned the price transparency. In this way, Republicans will give States the option to choose. Again, they can stay in ObamaCare if they want. They have that option now. They can do nothing, and it goes away if the Supreme Court rules that the subsidies have been implemented illegally or they can go with the Patient Freedom Act--the Patient Freedom Act--which gives patients the power by lowering costs, lowering the cost by eliminating mandates, returning power over insurance back to the commissioners who govern closest to those who actually will be using the insurance, and then giving the patient the power of portability, protection against preexisting conditions, and the power of price transparency.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. I wish to say briefly that I thank Senator Collins for her thoughtful review of the Patient Freedom Act, who after our office has probably reviewed it the most and made several substantial changes that have made it better. I also thank her for her speech, which was a very thoughtful critique of why we are replacing ObamaCare--not because it is the President's bill but because of things that she described, where people have an incentive not to earn more money and a penalty if they do, which goes against the American values that if you work hard you can be more successful. It should not be that the Federal Government is discouraging that. I thank her for her thoughtful speech, her thoughtful comments, and her great input into the final product. 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, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise today to share my concerns regarding the administration's recently finalized Clean Water Act rule issued by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to define waters of the United States. The Clean Water Act clearly states it is the ``policy of Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution.'' Despite this partnership and the limits to Federal authority, the President and his administration, along with some lawmakers, have sought in recent years to clarify and extend the scope of Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act in a manner that would expand the Federal Government's ability to regulate waters of the United States--in short, a Federal power grab. Changing the scope of the law, including the Clean Water Act, is solely the responsibility of Congress. Yet, the President's administration has again elected to bypass the legislative process by finalizing this rule. When I am in Louisiana, I consistently hear from my constituents about the impacts this rule could have on private property development, timberland, farmland, and other bodies of water that would be subject to Federal control. They tell me this rule will create more uncertainty and impact infrastructure projects and jobs despite the EPA and the Corps' assurances to the contrary. Louisiana is experiencing significant economic growth--growth that is bringing jobs to those Americans who have had the hardest time finding jobs with this recent poorly performing economy. This progress will be negatively affected as a result of this rule. In addition to the increased costs and regulations, the rule invites costly litigation, and it can significantly restrict the ability of landowners to make decisions about their property and make it harder for State and local governments to plan for their own development. Let me note that this is not the only rule the EPA has been working on that will negatively impact the economy and the job growth in my State. Their proposed rule to lower the standard for ground-level ozone will hurt job development in Louisiana, carrying with it health impacts to workers and families that are not fully considered by the EPA. It is clearly established that the higher the standard of living, the healthier the family. These rules will lower the standard of living for those who lose their jobs. In Calcasieu Parish, more than $60 billion in various manufacturing projects are underway and are in the process of being approved--that is $60 billion with a ``b.'' These will require construction workers-- again creating the kinds of jobs our economy needs more of. These projects can be severely impacted as a consequence of this rule. We see in this graphic display the navigable waters prior to the release of the rule this past week in Calcasieu Parish. Now we will see the bodies that will fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government under the finalized rule. Again, this here is under current law. And that is what it will be. This will impact the ability of local government to plan their development. Instead of people in Louisiana deciding how best to use their property, the Federal Government will be able to dictate many land use decisions, which have always been local. Again, this rule is a major takeover effort by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers. The administration has stated that this rule is narrowly defined. However, under the new definitions for tributaries, adjacent waters, and waters that are neighboring a traditional navigable water, virtually any water body could fall under the Agency's regulatory authority. And if certain bodies of water don't fit these definitions, the Agency can make a case-by-case determinations of significant nexus. Assistant Secretary Jo-Ellen Darcy from the Army Corps said last week that this rule is a huge win for public health and the economy and reflects that clean water matters to the American people. First, let me point back to this map that community leaders in Calcasieu Parish provided for me, highlighting that this is not a win for the economy and could significantly impact economic and private land development moving forward. Secondly, as a physician--I am a doctor--I understand the importance of human health, and I also understand the impacts on human health as a consequence of overregulation by the Federal Government. If people are poor, their health suffers. There is a strong statistical relationship when, because of regulations and regulatory uncertainty, jobs are lost overseas. Again, I believe this revised rule is a power grab by the administration and not based upon any congressional action. We took a vote on this issue back in March, during the budget debate, to limit the expansion of Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, which I supported. Last fall, we took a similar vote while I was in the House of Representatives to repeal this harmful regulation. My colleague from Wyoming, Senator John Barrasso, has a bill, the Federal Water Quality Protection Act. It is a good bill that provides clarity for how EPA should and should not define the waters of the United States. I know the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma, intends to move this bill through his committee soon, and I wish to offer my support for that legislation. Again, we have seen time and again that this administration will attempt to overreach the limits of what the executive branch should do. When it comes to the EPA's overreach, the waters of the United States rule isn't the exception; it is the norm. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, today I rise in appreciation of seersucker manufacturers and enthusiasts across the country. I extend a Happy Seersucker Day. This uniquely American fashion has a storied history dating back to 1909. Louisiana is proud to have played an important part in introducing the country to seersucker apparel. The first seersucker suit was designed by Joseph Haspel at his Broad Street facility in New Orleans, LA. This lightweight cotton fabric, known for its signature pucker has been enjoyed by Americans from all walks of life during our 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 last year in the U.S. House of Representatives by designating Wednesday, June 11 as National Seersucker Day. I wish to continue this tradition in U.S. Senate by designating Thursday, June 11 as National Seersucker Day once again. I encourage everyone to wear seersucker on this day to commemorate this iconic American clothing.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. CASSIDY. I now ask for a second reading and, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9 a.m., Thursday, May 21; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following leader remarks, the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 1314, with the time until the cloture vote at 10 a.m. equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

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, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 47, which is at the desk.