Bill Cassidy

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, the intent of my amendment is to provide greater accountability over the use and allocation of administrative costs associated with the funds authorized in this bill. It is important we attempt to maximize the ability of the dollar to reach the classroom. The amendment simply requires that, within 3 years after the enactment of H.R. 10, the Government Accountability Office would provide a report on whether the amount of funding for State administrative costs is appropriate. If the funds are determined inappropriate, GAO must provide a recommendation on what an appropriate level of funding would be. My amendment is budget neutral, with no additional reporting requirements. It is simple and straightforward, ensuring that the millions of taxpayer dollars will go to classrooms, not caught up in bureaucracy. We all know how easy it is for administrative costs in the public sector to balloon. This amendment helps to prevent this from happening. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 139, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Virginia, Representative Randy Forbes, be taken off of H.R. 1239, the Accessing Medicare Therapies Act.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3370. First let me say this affects almost all Americans. On this map, you can see, if there is a color, there is a chance that you are affected, and Chairman Hensarling pointed out that Dallas is a hot spot of red. That is a place where the woman he referred to will benefit because of this reform, and I will say that all Americans will because it is our job, in Congress, to protect the American citizen from agencies implementing laws in ways which are not sustainable. The flood maps that FEMA has been using have questionable actuarial calculations, and there have been unrealistic rate increases. The bill before us today, which I worked closely in developing with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm) and others, to strike the right balance, takes into consideration both fiscal solvency and consumer affordability. First, the bill is paid for. It is paid for, and the funds will go into the NFIP reserve fund, so in the future, there will be money in the till, should there be another disaster. Secondly, I will say that, if we don't do this, the National Flood Insurance Program will enter into a death spiral. CBO estimates that for every 10 percent increase in premiums, 1.4 percent of the subscribers drop off. If people are getting 2,000 percent premium increases, they will all drop off, which puts it into a death spiral. I would say this is actually the fiscally responsible thing that puts the program on a glide path to actuarial soundness and, in the meantime, benefits Americans across the way. A broad coalition of Republicans, Democrats, and Realtors have worked hard on this. I would like to thank Neil Bradley in Leader Cantor's office; from my staff, Chris Gillott; and Richard Hoffman in Representative Grimm's office, for a lot of tremendous work.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, I kind of keep asking myself why we would not want to provide transparency. If the Federal Government is going to impose a massive bureaucratic regime involving the American people, why should we not at least require them to be accountable for the success or failure of that regime? The Exchange Information Disclosure Act requires accountability and transparency, which has been, frankly, elusive from the administration on these issues. And, indeed, before committees and before Americans there has been a tendency to give information which is misleading. For example, enrollment numbers are calculated by the numbers who sign up for coverage, not those who actually pay for their first month's premium. In reality, unless you pay for that first month's premium, you are not enrolled. Coverage does not become effective until these are paid; and history shows many will sign up who will never actually enroll. The American people are affected by this. They are paying for it. We are their employees, so to speak. They pay our salary. They have a right to know, and the only way to know is to see the results. I keep on smiling in kind of an angry sort of way when I think about those folks who came to testify about the Web site. Two weeks before it was to open, we were told that it was ready and that there were no problems. I specifically asked if the Spanish- language Web site was ready. Oh, yes, there's no problem. We can just stand it up. In truth, none of that was true. The only way we learned it was not true was when the numbers came out, it was clear that folks were not enrolling. So everything we had been told was exposed as a lie, and yet we would not have known had we not seen those enrollment figures. Compliance should not be difficult. Insurance companies know on a daily basis how many people have clicked on, how many people have signed up, how many checks they receive. Insurance companies know this on a daily basis. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government can tell the American people these results on a weekly basis. The Exchange Information Disclosure Act is a commonsense piece of legislation that all my colleagues who champion transparency and accountability should support. All it does is ensure full disclosure of the most important data points needed to determine what is really going on with the President's health care law's implementation. It is vitally important for the public, and it is vitally important for us as we attempt to do the American people's will in our oversight of the program.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the reform the Biggert-Waters Act. Let's first point out that the flood insurance program was reformed under Biggert-Waters with the goal to make it both affordable and accessible. It did indeed make flood insurance accessible, but it is being implemented in such a way as to make it unaffordable. Now, the question is: Is this, as some people called it, a bailout for vacation homes for the rich people? Is it going to improve the solvency of the program? Yet, somehow do we have to see how these reforms play out before we reform once more? Let's address each of these. This will do absolutely nothing for the solvency of the National Flood Insurance Program. Indeed, it is guaranteed to make it insolvent. FEMA estimates that for every 10 percent increase in a premium, you have a 1 percent decrease in the number of people purchasing that policy. Do the math. Somebody whose policy is now $700, if it rises to $7,000, they have a basically 100 percent chance of dropping their policy. When that happens, FEMA still has to cover their fixed costs. Those fixed costs are concentrated under fewer and fewer subscribers to the insurance policy, which means that even more people get to the point where they can no longer afford this policy, which means, that, again, that fixed cost is concentrated further. You have entered the death spiral of a program, so the National Flood Insurance Program dies. That will happen, under the assumptions used by CBO for these estimates. Now, some would say, wait a second. FEMA actually had some good reforms to work with. That is true, but they are not really implementing them. FEMA is doing their few flood maps with what is called a no levee analysis. If the Army Corps of Engineers has not certified a flood control structure, FEMA pretends it is not there. Now, Lafourche Parish in south Louisiana has a levee they built themselves, and they have pictures; on the one side they have floodwaters, and on the other side they have dry land with flowers. Those levees clearly work, but because they are not Army Corps of Engineers certified, Lafourche Parish gets no credit. Jefferson Parish, a suburb of New Orleans, has big pumps to help reduce floodwaters, and yet FEMA does not include the efficacy of these in their flood maps. This no levee analysis was not supposed to be part of Biggert-Waters, but that is how the program is being implemented. Now, is this a bailout for rich people? The people in Louisiana who will benefit from reforming our current process, which is to say suffer under Biggert-Waters, as currently crafted, are working people. They work in the refineries that provide the gasoline for the rest of the Nation. Their homes are $120,000 to $220,000. These are not rich people insuring vacation homes. These are folks in their primary residences-- in many cases, homes that have never flooded but, in many cases, homes that would suffer under this program. And that leads me to the harm to the economy that will occur. The uncertainty of the cost of flood insurance is freezing real estate markets. Homebuilders have no market for the homes that they wish to build. There is a cratering of the bank lending. Indeed, there are reports of people taking their keys into the bank, dropping those keys on a desk, unable to afford the flood insurance, therefore unable to keep their mortgage so walking away from the home that they are attempting to purchase. The impact upon the rest of the country? Most of the refined gasoline in the rest of the country is refined on the gulf coast, Louisiana, and in Texas. Those workers cannot afford to keep the homes that allow them to work in these refineries. There is an economic impact both locally in the State but it, indeed, goes nationwide. Flood insurance should be accessible. It should be affordable. Biggert-Waters needs to be further reformed in order to allow both.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 612 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, for the last 30 years, I have worked in a hospital for the uninsured. What I have learned is that unless you trust the families, unless you give power to the patient, you truly cannot make good medical decisions. This is an email I got from someone who is my age--mid-50s. She says that we just got a letter from our health care provider, we had a major medical with a $10,000 deductible. We have lost that. We were told the insurance was not acceptable as written, so now our new policy has a $7,000 deductible and it cost us $10,000 more a year. The deductible goes down by $3,000, their premium up by $10,000. This is not power to the family or to the patient. This is Washington saying, thou shalt spend thy money in the way that we direct you to spend it. Frankly, I don't know if we can reconstruct the private insurance market. It may have been decimated by the Affordable Care Act. The last chance probably was the Enzi resolution on the Senate side in which it was pointed out that as many as 80 percent of Americans will lose their individual policy, but every Democrat voted against that Enzi resolution. There is hope. It is the Keep Your Health Plan Act, which allows the policies to be resold, to occasionally be tweaked and, by the way, to be sold to others, preserving, if you will, the power of big numbers, which is key to the insurance industry. Now, the other option, the President and the others on the Senate side, don't allow these policies to be sold to others. And so without allowing that, of course they are eventually going to be actuarially unsound and collapse. It is a sleight of hand which is disingenuous in terms of its intent. We give power to the patients. We must trust families. We should pass the Keep Your Health Plan Act and allow families to make their own decisions.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the Louisiana Business & Technology Center (LBTC), located on Louisiana State University's South Campus in Louisiana's Sixth Congressional District. It is indeed a great honor and privilege to join with the LBTC in commemorating and celebrating 25 years of dedicated service to the business community in the State of Louisiana. Over the past 25 years, the LBTC has partnered with small businesses and entrepreneurs to help them reach their goals of longevity and self- sufficiency. Under the leadership of Executive Director Charles D'Agostino and his team, the LBTC has created over 10,000 jobs and helped start up companies raise $172 million in loans and equity investments. Additionally, the LBTC has been instrumental in providing Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grant assistance to over 2,500 companies amounting to $77 million in awards. Finally, the Center has enlisted the support of LSU's student body in creating a Student Incubator which has spawned 28 full time businesses with 97 jobs and has raised over $3 million in capital since 2010. Based upon the LBTC's long record of accomplishment and achievement, they have obtained the reputation of being known as one of the best entrepreneurial launchpads in the State. On behalf of the residents of Louisiana's Sixth Congressional District, I congratulate the Louisiana Business and Technology Center on the tremendous contribution it has had in fostering and developing small businesses which are a vital component to our Nation's economy.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to stress that the Morganza to the Gulf project is of immense importance to Louisiana's coastal restoration and protection efforts. It protects both fragile wetlands from hurricane surge and also is environmentally sound. The Corps estimates it will prevent an estimated $1 billion in flood- related damages annually and protect over 53,000 structures. The Corps supports this project. Their own analysis indicates it will provide over $300 million in annual economic benefit. It has been under study for the last two decades, was previously authorized in 2000 and 2007; and as Mr. Scalise notes, recently a completed Chief's Report was filed which stated the project is economically justified, environmentally sound and acceptable, and of sound engineering. That said, there is this problem with the late filing of the Chief's Report. We do need this project authorized, and I ask that the legislation be passed and that it go to conference, where Mr. Scalise, Mr. Vitter, and I can all work with the chairman on this. I ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania to please hold these hearings and to review all projects that have received a Chief's Report.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat what my colleague from Florida said. My Democratic colleagues have suggested that if the House only passes the clean Senate CR, we can move on with business. I will point out if the Senate will only consider the House CR, we can also move on. But the problem is that there's two provisions. One provision takes away a sweetheart deal that only Members of Congress and their staff get. Secondly, since the President delayed the mandate on employers to provide insurance for a year, we would similarly delay the mandate on the employee to have that insurance. If she is relying upon her employer to provide the policy, what is she to do if he is given a break on not providing that policy? We can quickly reopen the government. The House Republicans have voted a budget which would completely fund the government, but it has those provisions which Senator Reid will not even negotiate over. He will not come together to discuss these two things. So, as a favor to both our country and the American taxpayer, I ask Senator Reid to address it.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. First, let's put in perspective exactly what is before the House for overall government funding. House Republicans have put forward a bill that would fund the government. We had two amendments, which are opposed. One would end the special deal that only Senators and Members of the House of Representatives get as regards ObamaCare exchanges. The other would treat employees of the employers whose mandate has been postponed the same. So if an employer's mandate to purchase insurance for employees has been postponed, the obligation of the employee to purchase is also. It's on these two amendments that these folks object, Mr. Speaker. One, they want to preserve the special deal for Members of Congress; and, two, they don't want workers to have the same deal as does the employer. Now that said, this brings us to this. If we can't fund the government because we have to preserve a special deal for Members of the Senate and of Congress, then at least we can mitigate its harmful effects. My gosh, a hurricane bearing down on your coastline is the ultimate in a harmful effect. I don't think we should hold hostage protection for those in harm's way so that Congress can preserve a special deal that only accrues to Members of Congress, speaking of cynicism. We cannot sacrifice the security of those on the gulf coast. I call upon the Senate to call on a vote both on these special amendments, but if not that, at least on funding of FEMA. In so doing, we can do something really good for those who do rely upon the Federal Government not all the time but in times of need. And also, if we can vote on those two special amendments, we can do something good for the taxpayers who really, despite all the effort to obfuscate, are beginning to understand that our budget agreement is being held up by the need to preserve a special deal for Senators and Representatives.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, I have good news for my colleagues from the Democratic side of the aisle. We can reopen the government. Let's make clear what the House has done: we have sent a continuing resolution to the Senate which funds the government and has two amendments which are found so objectionable. It does away with a special sweetheart deal the President created that only benefits Senators and Congressmen and Congresswomen. And for those folks who are getting their insurance from their employer, the President postponed the mandate on their employer, so we postponed the mandate on the employee. That's all we have to do. Now if you'll want that special deal so much, we understand. But if you speak about people going hungry, keep in mind, it's only your affection for that special deal that keeps them from being fed. If you really cared about those people, you would give up your special deal. Now it may be that Senator Reid so loves it, he can do nothing about it. That said, let's negotiate. The Constitution says that if the two Chambers disagree, you go to conference committee. At the end of the day, if you give up your special deal, people are fed. Why do you want that special deal so much?

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand why somebody would object to this. The bill is about transparency, and this amplifies that transparency. EPA can impose rules which cost tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars on the U.S. economy. Those expenses translate into jobs lost. Having access to the underlying information, and the estimates of cost and benefits, is critical to know why that is. And as my colleague said, there is no reason to have to reveal information about individuals. And let me just point to the medical literature. In the medical literature, there is a push that when the Federal Government funds research, that that underlying data is made subject, is made available to the general public. When the FDA reviews drugs, FDA will look at underlying data. So why would we require it for medications, which obviously affect many people, but not for the EPA. Having methodology which is transparent is absolutely essential in modern scientific literature. I don't see why there is an objection to it unless the hope is that EPA can satisfy an ideological bent without having to justify it. This amendment will provide more transparency for EPA's billion- dollar rules. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment and ``yes'' on the underlying bill. The American people cannot afford to have jobs shipped overseas or have their economy otherwise wrecked. More rationality, transparency, and accountability must be brought to the EPA and its rulemaking process.

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill, H.R. 1582.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, this bill doesn't cripple anything. Laws that are currently on the books stay on the books. The problem is that the EPA uses bad science. I say that not as a Republican. I say that as quoting other scientists. For example, a gentleman who is a former member of the Harvard School of Public Health testified: ``EPA's statistical approach is fraught with numerous assumptions and uncertainties.'' A physician from the Colorado School of Public Health said that the way that EPA uses statistics ``is also highly misleading to policymakers.'' I will make the point. You cannot be pro-family unless you are pro- environment, and you cannot be pro-environment unless you are pro- family, but you can't be either unless you first have a strong and healthy economy. Now, the Energy Consumers Relief Act simply puts a check on the billion-dollar energy rules that may hurt American families and cost American jobs. If you support transparency and good government, you should support this bill. If you support protecting American families and consumers from higher energy costs, you should support H.R. 1582. If you support having the prosperity needed for families and for environmental health protections, you should support H.R. 1582. If you are pro-jobs, pro- economic growth and anti-poverty, you should support H.R. 1582. I urge you to vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit. I urge you to support the Energy Consumers Relief Act. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order, and I claim the time in opposition to the motion.

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion to recommit.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam Chair, I want to thank Chairman Upton, Chairman Whitfield, and their staff for their hard work in preparing this important legislation and bringing it to the House floor, which, by the way, passed the committee with bipartisan support. Currently, millions of Americans are unemployed or underemployed, millions more have left the labor force entirely, and our economy continues to struggle to recover. This is particularly true among blue collar workers, blue collar workers who have traditionally been employed in mining, manufacturing, and construction. Those three are related because the mining, the bringing of resources from underneath the ground, fuels literally energy-intensive manufacturing enterprises, which will then go on to make steel, use the steel to construct pipelines, or first make steel pipes, then to construct pipelines. It is an energy-intensive economy that brings good jobs with good benefits to blue collar workers. I have no clue why folks on the other side of the aisle are so hostile to our blue collar workers. While we have all these millions unemployed, the EPA has been advancing an expansive regulatory assault on the production and distribution of affordable and reliable energy. Now, by the way, current regulations don't change. That does not roll back anything. This is only about prospective regulations. So if there is a concern about the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, those regulations as they have currently been enforced remain the same. It is just that numerous new regulations have created uncertainty, contributing to an unprecedented number of announced power plant shutdowns, destroying blue collar jobs, increasing energy costs on manufacturers, and raising concern regarding electrical grid reliability. Although the EPA attributes large public health benefits to billion- dollar regulations, their scientific analysis has been sharply criticized, with one public health expert saying their method of analysis is misleading to public policymakers. Another, the National Academy of Science, on a formaldehyde rule saying that the conclusions are not justified by the methodology or the research that was presented. We are using faulty research to justify the destruction of blue collar jobs. I don't know why anybody wouldn't want to be for this, but some are not. There are concerns that the EPA ignores a significant public health cost associated with energy prices and result in job losses. I'm a doc. I know that when someone loses their job with good benefits and goes on something like Medicaid their health suffers. There is a researcher, Dr. Till von Wachter, currently an associate professor of economics at UCLA, who testified that job losses can lead to significant reductions in life expectancy of 1 to 1.5 years. This isn't just a parent, the worker; it's their children as well. It is so well documented, and yet folks are just cavalier and casual about the job losses that EPA regulation brings about. When energy becomes expensive or unreliable, public health is threatened, as that research shows. All we are asking for here is accountability and transparency to determine the full impact of EPA's major energy-related regulations-- the impact it will have on jobs, energy prices, and our Nation's economy. If the benefit outweighs the cost, the rule goes forward; but if the cost greatly outweighs the benefit, then let's just stick up for the blue collar worker, her family, let's just stick up for them so maybe they don't have to go on government dependency. By the way, it is not unprecedented. OMB has previously put a hold on EPA rules, and EPA has the right to put a hold on Army Corps of Engineer rulings. Commonly, agencies are accountable to one another. All we ask is that the EPA will be accountable to the Department of Energy, but, if you will, to the American people. This rule requires that if the energy rules are appropriately reviewed by the Secretary of Energy, consulting with the other relevant agencies to determine whether the proposed rules will cause significant adverse effects to the economy if this review takes place and it does not outweigh the benefits, then the rule is put on hold. By so doing, the legislation ensures energy cost and economic and job impacts are given appropriate consideration. It is important to note, again, nothing in the legislation prevents consideration of both cost and benefits in the proposed rule; and an independent and thorough review by Federal departments with expertise in energy and economic analysis is merely a check, merely a call, for EPA to be transparent, which they have not been in the past.

Mr. CASSIDY. The bill will protect consumers from higher energy prices by providing additional oversight of EPA's most expensive rules that regulate the production, supply, distribution, or use of energy. Most importantly, it protects blue collar jobs from construction by an overzealous bureaucrat who just decides because they have something that they want to do and they don't wish to be transparent about it, it is okay to destroy blue collar jobs. I urge all Members to support H.R. 1582, the Energy Consumers Relief Act of 2013.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. CASSIDY. First, let's be clear, this is not just for Louisiana. This $2 million will be available nationwide. And that said, I rise in support of this amendment. Budgets are about establishing priorities and then making wise use of scarce resources. We know with these scarce resources, $1 million in a planning grant, which later on will be funded to greater dollars, can actually save billions in hurricane repair. So, if I may say, there is lots of money right now in the Corps. The fact is the Corps has even a larger backlog, and these projects are not $2 million to complete. It takes $500,000 to begin the NEPA process or the sampling of the soil or something like that. So small amounts of dollars at the beginning can initiate a process that comes to fruition with an authorization later on. This is a national issue. Let me just speak just about Louisiana, because you could equally speak about your home State. The gasoline that is sold in Philadelphia is produced in St. Charles Parish. If a hurricane knocks out that petrochemical plant, gasoline prices rise by 20 cents a gallon in the Northeast. Now, you could say something similar in Ohio and Mr. Garamendi in California and others elsewhere. So we're not saying initiate a process which completely funds. We're saying give seed money so that community in California, Ohio, or Louisiana can begin the process where later on we can make a decision regarding greater funding. We can, as Mr. Richmond said, either spend a little bit now and potentially save billions in the future or, on our budget priorities, we can say we're going to be penny-wise but pound-foolish. I urge passage of the amendment. I thank my colleague for introducing it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.