Bill Cassidy

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I have the privilege to speak briefly about my friend, Bishop Larry Brandon, who opened up the Senate with prayer. I feel like, with all these pastors--you and Chaplain Barry Black and Bishop Brandon--he is also a remarkable man who has a church in Shreveport, LA, and also in Oakland, CA. I say: How do you do it? He goes: Every other week. He regards his ministry not just to the soul but also to the body. I say that as a doctor, recognizing how the two can be intertwined. When I first met him, he was about twice as big as he is now. We saw each other at breakfast, and I said: Bishop, you lost weight, man? He said: I am glad you noticed. Eight-five pounds. If you don't notice 85 pounds, boy, are you blind. He has done that not only for his own health but for the physical, emotional, and spiritual health of his congregation. We know I am a doctor. At times, people slip off that diet. We are in Louisiana; so you always have good food. He says: We never condemn; we never condone. We just always support. I am speaking about his ministry to their health and also his ministry to their spirit. When we in this Congress adopt that--we don't condemn each other, we don't condone bad behavior, but we work together to support one another for the betterment of our physical, our emotional, and spiritual health--that is a tribute to our bishop. Thank you. I yield the floor.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, I am here to talk about flood insurance, an issue facing Louisiana, and, I am sorry to say, an issue now facing the Presiding Officer's State. Floods can occur anywhere--for example, on the top of a mountaintop. People don't realize that, but you have this gully going down from the top to the bottom, and if it gets a big rain--boom--going down from the top of that mountain, you will have a flood. And that has occurred, unfortunately, in California. I spent several years in Southern California, and I can relate to that. But it happens regularly in my State. Now, why in my State? Well, folks think of hurricanes as wind, rain, and lightning, but one of the greatest threats is actually the risk of flooding. And these floods can destroy homes, businesses and leave them--if they don't destroy them right away, they can leave them moist. And when it is moist, it begins to rot from the inside. And homes that families have lived in for over 50 years that have never flooded before can become unlivable. So if you come down to Louisiana or California or Pennsylvania or West Virginia or other things, and you ask folks in the bottom of a riverbed, for example, if a flood can upend their life, they will say emphatically yes. So if we know the answer is an emphatic yes, then what can Congress do about it, if anything? Well, we have a mechanism to address it, the National Flood Insurance Program which currently ensures 4.7 million American families. It is a Federal program, and we are the ones that can change it to make it more reliable, more affordable, more sustainable. But the challenge is that it is a tough topic. A lot of folks in Congress just don't understand the issue. And so we need to have the understanding, but then we also need the political will. Now, this has just kind of--boom--up, up, up in urgency. The Federal Emergency Management Agency recently implemented a new risk assessment called Risk Rating 2.0. Now Risk Rating 2.0 affects Louisiana, the Gulf Coast--frankly, all coasts and anyplace where there is a river or stream that can overflow, and it particularly affects folks who are lower income. Sometimes people say that the flood insurance program is a program for rich people. Not true; 62 percent of all NFIP policies are in parishes or counties where the median household income is below the national average of $54,000. And truth be told that, as we again just saw in California--what you think of as a desert State--flooding can occur in any State. So if we look here, here are NFIP claims by cost: 44 out of 50 States have had over $50 million of National Flood Insurance Program claims from 1978 to 2021. And there are only 6 States that have less than $50 million in claims; 13 States have had over a billion in damage, and they are all over the map. It is Virginia--and not just the coastal states--it is Missouri; it is the States on the gulf; it is California; it is going up the northeast. This is geographically distributed. And, by the way, these are the States hit hardest, but they are not the only States. Every State has had at least an NFIP claim somewhere, sometime, because every State is affected by flooding. Now, the way the program is currently being conducted, however, is putting it into what is called an actuarial death spiral. Rising premiums mean fewer can afford the insurance. So let's set this up. Right now, you have people at high risk; and the way insurance works is it spreads it over plans over homes that have a lower risk. But if you raise everybody's premiums dramatically, the people who are at lowest risk will drop their coverage. And so you have the same amount of risk, but now it is concentrated upon a smaller pool of homes. That concentration raises the rates even more. And those who are the lowest risk in that pool drop their insurance, which further concentrates. That is called an actuarial death spiral. I hate to put it this way, but it is visual. Think of when you flush the toilet and it begins to spin, and then that spin goes down. Well, that spinning is that death spiral, and the water in the pool gets smaller and smaller and smaller until it is gone and there is no one left who can afford the cost for the insurance, and it ceases to exist. Now, by the way, this is true of every insurance program. I am describing the National Flood Insurance Program, but this actuarial death spiral is actually known to be just an insurance--that is just how insurance works. If your pool gets too small, risk too concentrated, the whole thing goes away. But the problem is, what is happening to the National Flood Insurance Program ignores the fact that the program is actually a bargain. And this is the real problem: When I have telephone townhalls and meeting with constituents, they tell me that their property--their property insurance, their casualty insurance--if you add that to their flood insurance, it is now more than their mortgage. So they are making the tough decision: Do I either leave my home, or do I drop my coverage? So let's just talk a little bit more about Risk Rating 2.0. First, recognize that this rate hike that we are currently going under could have been stopped with the stroke of a President's pen. Either President Biden or President Trump could have told FEMA to delay or cancel the implementation. In 2019, my staff worked with and my office worked with the Trump administration to successfully delay the implementation because of concerns about how FEMA was calculating costs. The concern remains, but the Biden administration has decided to go forward, ignoring the concerns of people in Louisiana and elsewhere. The results are that about 900,000 people have dropped their insurance because they cannot afford it--900,000. That is the beginning of this death spiral we spoke of. Now, there is some promising news. The Banking Committee recently had a hearing on the National Flood Insurance Program that I put forward, and we got excellent input. There is a consensus that no family in America should be forced to move because of unaffordable flood insurance premiums, that flood insurance premiums should remain affordable, accessible, and accountable to the taxpayer and sustainable to the future. So my challenge to my colleagues: Designate somebody on your staff. This is a complicated topic. But whether a Californian, a Virginian, a Missourian, you name a State that is in yellow of some tint, ask somebody on your staff to become familiar with the flood insurance program. Then let's come together and move the legislation that will reform it. The first issue is to gain understanding, then the second issue is to have the political will. If we do this, we can maintain a program which has meant so much to Americans in every State--but certainly in 43 out of 50 States--to enable them to maintain the coverage to protect them should their home flood, that they would be able to build back. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following letter be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent--

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, this week, the HELP Committee--the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee--will be holding a vote on the renomination of Julie Su for Secretary of Labor. At the direction of the chair, this committee vote is taking place behind closed doors, without a public hearing, and with no opportunity to hear from Ms. Su directly. It is important to note that the committee is voting on Ms. Su's nomination for the second time. Her first nomination failed and was returned to the White House after the majority leader declined to give her a vote on the Senate floor when it was clear that based upon bipartisan opposition, she would not be confirmed. During Ms. Su's first nomination hearing for the Secretary of Labor last April, the committee addressed a variety of concerns with her past record in California and her tenure at the Department of Labor. Since then, concerns over her leadership at the Department of Labor have grown, and they warrant further review by the committee. Earlier this month, I sent a formal request to the HELP Committee chair to hold a public hearing on Ms. Su's second nomination so members of the committee can discuss concerns directly with Ms. Su. Unfortunately, the chair denied our request and, instead, is holding a vote on Ms. Su's nomination behind closed doors, without a full public hearing. This is unacceptable. It has been almost a year since Ms. Su's nomination hearing. It is important that we examine the many issues that have arisen since then and get an explanation over those serious concerns in her year of being an Acting Secretary. She has built a troubling record as the Acting DOL Secretary, implementing policies that promote large labor unions at the expense of workers' freedoms and economic growth. Currently, Ms. Su is overseeing the implementation of DOL's worker classification rule, dismantling the gig economy, and jeopardizing the ability of 27 million Americans who choose to work as independent contractors. Additionally, the Department of Labor has also proposed a new overtime rule, dramatically increasing the overtime pay threshold by 55 percent, which will decrease job opportunities and raise prices for the American family. The Department of Labor has also released a new policy that allows an outside union official to influence a workplace inspection even when that workplace is not unionized. The union is not there, but they can influence the workplace inspection. These are all terribly problematic actions taken by an Acting Secretary who lacks Senate confirmation. The Biden administration's attempt to circumvent the advice and consent provision of the Constitution by leveraging Ms. Su's previous position as Deputy Secretary brings these actions into legal question. And, by the way, there are also serious concerns about Ms. Su's ability to manage the Department of Labor. Under her leadership, there has been a 50-percent increase in illegal child labor since 2022. There are alarming reports that senior DOL officials repeatedly ignored warnings, downplaying the exploitation of migrant children for cheap labor. When the committee asked Ms. Su to explain DOL's failure to address child labor violations, she repeatedly failed to comply with congressional oversight. Additionally, DOL has struggled to process H-2B guest worker visas, crucial for employers that experience workforce shortages based on the season. These delays are already having significant impact on these employers and, again, leading to rising prices on families. The American people deserve a competent Secretary at the Department of Labor. As outlined in the Constitution, the Senate is still supposed to vote on whether to confirm Ms. Su. HELP Committee members need the ability--the opportunity--to raise their concerns to Ms. Su and get answers. Nomination hearings are not just checking a box; they are a crucial part of the process. Every Senator needs the information revealed in hearings to evaluate and decide how they will vote on a nomination. The chair's decision to not hold a public hearing on Ms. Su is unacceptable, shows a lack of transparency from the majority, and undermines the committee's constitutional duty to advise and consent on Presidential nominees. No one is above accountability, especially an unconfirmed yet acting Cabinet-level nominee with massive influence over our Nation's economy. As ranking member of the HELP Committee, I will continue to lead Senate Republicans in holding Ms. Su accountable. We need to ensure that she fairly enforces our Nation's labor laws. With that, I yield the floor. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the scheduled rollcall vote begin now.

Mr. CASSIDY

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

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, Abraham Lincoln, when he opened up the Gettysburg Address, said: Few will little note, nor long remember what I say here today. As I rise as the Super Bowl is about to begin, I realize that most people are looking for a view of Taylor Swift and not listening to us. But nonetheless, I feel compelled to come because we are obviously considering important issues. As we know, we are currently discussing a national security bill that would assist Israel after the October 7 attack and resist the efforts of Putin and the Chinese Communist Party. But this issue, importantly, has become entwined with border security, U.S. border security. The way things work--and we all know this in the Chamber but just to specify--if any bill is going to be signed into law, it is because you have good policy, you have good politics, and it has good process. If you don't have those three things on a big bill, then something is not going through. I would like to talk about that policy, politics, process dynamic here and how the process is being used to defeat the passage of good policy. By the way, it is that process which confuses folks, but I will get to that. Let me just first discuss a little bit of the policy. I am speaking as a Republican, a conservative Republican, and I can say that almost all Republicans want to confront the Chinese Communist Party. We understand around the world that the Chinese Communist Party is doing its best to undermine the interest of the United States, turning a blind eye as fentanyl is imported into our country, with 60,000 to 100,000 people in any given year dying from overdoses. We understand that the Chinese Communist Party takes our industry, subsidizes theirs with that industry that moves over there, and they take our jobs. Then they pollute the atmosphere, and it blows over to the United States. This is a geopolitical rival, and the Chinese Communist Party has turned their eyes upon Taiwan. Most Republicans--all Republicans--want to confront China--or so they say. Most Republicans want to keep Vladimir Putin from killing Americans. We understand he is trying to kill Americans. If anybody watching now or later wants to dispute that fact, just Google ``Wagner Group''--Wagner Group, that group of Russians, that military group attacking U.S. soldiers in the Middle East. You go there, you are going to find an article. You can find a radio transcript of them attacking our troops. We slaughtered them. That is not the point. They intended to slaughter us. Russian troops attacked Americans. Russians are in Venezuela. In Venezuela, they have helped that become a narco-state in which drugs are being imported to the United States. And Russian troops are trying to hurt us around the world. Most Republicans, if not all, say they are against that. Lastly, let's talk briefly about support of Israel. Republicans support Israel, and after October 7, in which, unprovoked, Hamas went in with those atrocities--killing pregnant women, slaughtering infants, killing the elderly; not going after combatants, not going after the Israeli Defense Forces, but going after Israelis at a peace concert, at a kibbutz where a group of Israelis lived who are committed to reconciliation with Palestine. That kibbutz was specifically targeted. Republicans say: We support Israel. In fact, it is hard for a Republican not to support the three things I just listed. So we have a policy before us which accomplishes that. It is not perfect. No bill comes through here that is perfect. Anybody can come up here with a laundry list on any bill and you can cherry-pick and find something that is bad with it. That is just the biggest game in town around here. But the point is that it overall accomplishes the goals we wish to accomplish if you want to keep Russians from killing Americans, push back on the CCP, and support our ally Israel. Now, can we do more? Absolutely. There is a mess at the southern border. One of my colleagues, Lindsey Graham, spoke earlier about a hole in the fence that the United States doesn't fix, the Biden administration doesn't fix, and ``60 Minutes'' had a documentary of them just pouring through this 4-foot-wide hole. So we know there is a mess at the southern border. Wouldn't it be great if we could put an amendment on this good policy to support our allies that will likewise control the southern border? The politics of controlling the border are really good. Republicans want to control the southern border. The politics to support Israel by and large are good on the Republican side. But the politics maybe are not as good, and there are some who, frankly, are not sure they want to support Israel, they don't think they really want to combat Putin, and they are not sure they want to support Taiwan, but they don't really want to say that. So instead, they say: Well, there is nothing in there about the southern border, and so I am not going to support this particular legislation. That makes the politics work out. I am being principled, by golly. It doesn't support the southern border. It doesn't stop those illegals coming across. So therefore, I am going to tank the whole bill. That politics kind of works for them. So our policy is good on supporting our allies. We would like to have better policy to support the southern border. But the politics of not supporting our allies are lousy, so if you don't want to support our allies, you just say that you don't have anything about the southern border, and so therefore, you are not going to support our allies. It is getting a little confusing. I apologize. But the people who are trying to execute this are relying on that confusion. How would you go about doing this? If you don't want the bad politics of not supporting Israel and you would like to have better policy--but wait a second. If you get the better policy, then you have to support Israel and confront Ukraine and China. You use the process. Remember, we have to have policy, politics, and process. This is where the use of process comes in to give you cover on the politics as you work to defeat good policy. Now, again, all those folks back home, reaching for the Doritos, looking for Taylor Swift on TV or getting tired of seeing Taylor Swift on TV, are saying: Process. Process. What is process? Well, anyone who has gone to a PTA meeting, a school board meeting, any sort of meeting has seen process at work. There is an agenda. If you want to be heard, you raise your hand, maybe get on a list. No one person or one group is allowed to dominate theoretically, but all get to contribute. In that mutual contribution, you come up with a product that is actually better for the whole. That is the way process is supposed to work. It works whether you are at a PTA meeting, a school board meeting, or in the U.S. Senate. But that process can be misused. Frankly, anyone who has been to a PTA meeting kind of knows it can be misused. So how could the process be misused in this set of circumstances? Well, remember, the only way we make this bill better is if we are allowed to put in an amendment that controls the situation at the southern border. But if you use the process to prevent an amendment from being placed, you never get that amendment; you never improve the policy; you never allow something good to happen to control the influx of illegal immigrants across the southern border. And because you never get that amendment, your excuse of voting against the policy to support Israel, confronting Putin, and the CCP is airtight--because somehow it doesn't address the problem at the southern border. But wait a second. You can only do that with an amendment, and the process is being used to prevent that amendment from being placed. Now, if it seems like things are going back and forth, that is kind of the intent. How do we confuse the American people? How do I keep my politics straight? Because I want my politics to support my allies, but I really don't want to support them. I don't want to say that verbally, that I don't want to support them, I don't want to confront Putin. The way I can do it is prevent an amendment, but I can't say that I am preventing an amendment, so I have to use the process to prevent the amendment. My children and I used to play a game called Opposite Day. They were young. At some point, they got too old for the game. They would say something like: Daddy, I want ice cream. I would say: Well, today is Opposite Day. You don't get ice cream if you want it. Well, I don't want ice cream. Well, Opposite Day is off. You get ice cream after all. You know, it would be kind of this going back and forth before I would finally buy them the ice cream. It is kind of like what is happening here. People are saying they don't want something or saying they want something when all their actions show they don't. The actions are opposite of that which they hope to achieve, but indeed, they are achieving what they actually want. But that is kind of--I won't go any further with opposite day. It is using the process to prevent an amendment from being placed because placing the amendment would therefore remove the obstacle to passing the policy which they really are opposed to. So let's quickly review. If you don't want to support Israel, if you don't want to confront Putin, if you don't want to confront the Chinese Communist Party and you would rather block this bill from supporting them by saying there is nothing to control the southern border, but you prevent an amendment from being passed that would control the southern border, then your politics are straight. Am I frustrated? I am incredibly frustrated. I am frustrated because I feel like this is a fundamental dishonesty with the American people. By the way, I am for the policy of controlling the southern border. There are drugs and people coming across that border, and I want an amendment process whereby we can make it tougher and harder for those cartels to ship those folks. Give us an ability to have that amendment. But I also want to support Israel, confront Putin, and I also want to keep the CCP from taking Taiwan for many reasons I could go into. By the way, I may be wrong. I may be totally wrong; in which case, I will owe an apology to some folks. But if all of a sudden it breaks up and we can have an amendment--an amendment that maybe makes it just a little harder for a cartel to traffic people and to traffic drugs--I will be so pleased. I will be so pleased that I was wrong. But on this day when folks are hopefully thinking about the Super Bowl and more pleasant things, I can't help but say that we in the Senate owe it to the American people to both be honest to them and to get something done. This is my plea to my colleagues: Let's be honest, and let's get something done. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I rise to pay tribute to Mr. Rusty Wilfong, who is being honored with the 2023 Bill Best Humanitarian Award by the Rotary Club of Ruston. Mr. Wilfong, a first-rate cook, uses his talents to serve the 20,000- plus-strong community of Ruston, LA. He cooks at dozens of community events as part of the Karl Malone Toyota Cooking Team, sponsored by the Louisiana Tech graduate and retired 14-time NBA All-Star. For example, Mr. Wilfong and his team cook every year at the Louisiana Tech student-athletes' welcome-back event and at every Tech home football game. He also cooks jambalaya for the annual radiothon sponsored by the Domestic Abuse Resistance Team. Based in 2023 at Super 1 Foods in Ruston, his jambalaya encouraged people to come by, donate, and go on Q94.1 FM to encourage others to donate. The organization supports shelters, counseling, and legal services for local abuse victims. Mr. Wilfong volunteers for Rotary Club events, including at a crawfish boil for local first responders last spring. He does it all for free, for local causes that make people's lives better, and to honor others who serve and enrich the community. His neighbors and colleagues value his contributions, which is why he is receiving this distinguished award. Rusty, thank you for supporting Ruston and all of North Louisiana through your time and your talents. You make our State a better place and give a little more joy to those who support it. I ask that all of Louisiana join me in thanks for his service.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, the Senate will soon vote on the Congressional Review Act, a resolution of disapproval to overturn President Biden's newest student loan scheme. Just like President Biden's original student debt cancellation scheme, this IDR does not forgive debt. It transfers the burden of $559 billion in Federal student loans to the 87 percent of Americans who don't have student loans, who chose not to go to college, or who already responsibly paid off their debts. I want to emphasize this point. There is much said in this Chamber about those who do less well and the implication that a policy like this would benefit those who do less well. This benefits folks-- couples--who make over $400,000. They went to college precisely to get a degree to earn more money, and many of them are earning more money. And this forgives--no, it doesn't forgive their debt. It transfers their debt to someone who never went; someone--he and his wife, she and her husband who are making $65,000 a year. They are going to have to pick up the slack for a couple making over $400,000. This is not a benefit for those who are less well-off. This is a benefit--a political payout--to folks who have done quite well precisely because they went to college. Under this rule, a majority of bachelor's degree student loan borrowers will not be expected to pay back even the principal. Ninety- one percent of new student loan debt will be eligible for reduced payments subsidized by the taxpayers. Where is the forgiveness for the guy who didn't go to college but is working to pay off the loan on a truck he takes to work? What about the woman who paid off her student loans and bought a less expensive home but is now struggling to afford the mortgage that she has? Is the administration providing them relief? No, of course not. Instead, the administration would have them not only pay their bills but the bills of those who decided to go to college in order to make more money or who made a decision not to pay back their student loans so they could buy a bigger house. This is irresponsible. It is deeply unfair. Aside from being unfair, this student loan cancellation scheme does not address the root cause that created the debt in the first place. For example, President Biden's policy does not hold colleges or universities accountable for rising costs. In the last 30 years, tuitions and fees have jumped at private nonprofit colleges--nonprofit colleges--by 80 percent. At public 4-year institutions, they jumped 124 percent. College is one of the largest financial investments many Americans make, but there is little information for the student and her family to know that they are making the right decision for where they are attending or the amount they are borrowing. So my Republican colleagues and I recently introduced the Lowering Education Cost and Debt Act, a package of five bills aimed at directly addressing the issues driving skyrocketing costs of higher education and the increasing amounts of debts students take on to attend school. By the way, some of these bills are by themselves. It is in a package, but you divide them out. Some of them are bipartisan in support and in sponsorship. Our legislation puts downward pressure on tuition, empowers students to make the educational decisions that put them on track to succeed both academically and financially. We are providing solutions for students and working to solve the student debt crisis--not a bandaid that merely transfers the debt to someone else, someone who is oftentimes poor, less financially well-off, than the person who no longer has the responsibility to pay back the loan. President Biden's student loan scheme is not a fix. It appears to be a politically motivated giveaway, forcing taxpayers to shoulder the responsibility of paying off someone else's debt. We need real leadership to address the issue. I close by encouraging all my colleagues to join me in voting to pass this Congressional Review Act resolution to prevent this unfair student debt cancellation scheme--unfair to the hundreds of millions of Americans who will bear the burden of paying off hundreds of billions of dollars of someone else's student loan, a student loan they took to make more money than almost all of those other people. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I ask for consent that the vote begin now.

Mr. CASSIDY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, only in the United States of America can the son of a Shreveport firefighter, the first college graduate in his family--only in our country can a person like this win a seat in Congress and just a few years later be elected the 56th Speaker of the House. Speaker Mike Johnson made history for our country and my home State by becoming the first Speaker of the House of Representatives ever from Louisiana. If you are from Louisiana--more particularly from Shreveport, Bossier, or Northwest Louisiana--or, by the way, if you graduated from Captain Shreve, you know Mike Johnson. He is the pride of them all. He is a straight shooter, a family man, a diligent man. Jim McCrery was the Congressman who held that same seat at a time in the past. When I was first elected, he gave me this advice: Keep your word, show up, and do your homework. I am sure he gave that same advice to Mike Johnson or, if not, Mike just was naturally that way, because it describes him to a tee. It is the reason why he is able to unify House Republicans, winning every Republican vote for Speaker for the first time since 2011. He has the ability to bridge divides that a lot of very capable people were not able to do. Mike brought together people who disagreed and kept them talking until they found a way forward. That is what leaders do. He is strong in his convictions, but he is not someone looking to steamroll others. He is a unifier and has a talent for working with folks to find common ground. We have all seen the push and pull between those who wish to govern and, frankly, those who are not very interested in governing. Mike wishes to govern. He wants to govern with conservative principles to get things done for the country and, hopefully, for my State as well. He has the temperament, intelligence, and integrity to do that as Speaker. I look forward to working with him to address issues like investing in American energy, securing our southern border, addressing the insurance crisis in Louisiana and nationwide, and finally doing something about the long-term debt being driven, among other things, by a Social Security Program going insolvent. With a conservative Speaker working to secure conservative wins, the country will do well. We both share a strong sense of duty, a deep faith, and a love for God. You could see his faith shine through in his speech when he won the vote. Of course, we share a deep love for our home State, Louisiana. Having a Speaker from Louisiana will help bring some good Louisiana values, perspective, priorities, and maybe even a little boiled crawfish to Washington, DC. Congratulations, Speaker Johnson, and to his wife Kelly and their four wonderful children. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

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

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, today I introduced the Congressional Review Act, a resolution of disapproval to overturn the Biden administration's newest student loan scheme: income-driven repayment. Just like President Biden's student loan cancellation scheme that was overturned by the Supreme Court, this policy does not forgive debt, it transfers the burden of almost $560 billion in Federal student loans from those who willingly took out the loans for college to make more money when they graduated to Americans who never attended college or who have already fulfilled their commitment to pay off their loans. Under this rule, a majority of bachelor's degree student loan borrowers will not be expected to even pay back the principal. We have moved beyond forgiving the interest, and we are now not even asking them to pay back the principal. Additionally, 91 percent of new student loan debt would be eligible for reduced payments subsidized by taxpayers. These policies are as unfair as they are irresponsible. Where is the forgiveness for the guy who didn't go to college but is working to pay off the loan on the truck that he takes to work? What about the woman who paid off her student loans but now struggles to pay her utilities or her mortgage? Is the administration providing her relief? Of course not. Instead, the administration would have them not only pay their bills but the bills of those who decided to go to college in order to get a degree to make more money. The resolution prevents average Americans, 80 percent of whom have no student loans, from being stuck with a policy that the administration is pushing not to be fair to all but rather to favor a few. The Supreme Court has already established the President does not have the authority to cancel hundreds of billions in student loans without direct consent from Congress. It is clear President Biden is trying to deflect the political fallout of the false promises that he never had the legal authority to make. President Biden's plan did nothing to address the problems that created the debt in the first place. It doesn't hold colleges or universities accountable for rising costs. According to the College Board, in the last 30 years, tuitions and fees have jumped in private nonprofit colleges by 80 percent. At public 4-year institutions, they jumped 124 percent. The Biden administration has refused to propose any solution that actually addresses the underlying problems that created the debt crisis in the first place. We cannot spend our way out of the problem of the ever-increasing costs of higher education. We need real solutions. That is why my colleagues and I introduced the Lowering Education Costs and Debt Act, a package of five bills aimed at directly addressing the issues driving skyrocketing costs of higher education and the increasing amounts of debt students take on to attend school. Our legislation puts downward pressure on tuition, empowering students to make the educational decisions that put them on track to academically and financially succeed. It also simplifies the student loan borrowing and repayment process so students don't take out more loans than they need and can navigate the student loan process without confusion. Unlike President Biden's student loan schemes, these are commonsense solutions that actually address root causes of the student loan crisis. In fact, some of the bills included in the package already have strong bipartisan support. President Biden's student loan scheme is not a fix; it is merely a bandaid forcing taxpayers to shoulder the responsibility of paying off someone else's debt. We need strong leadership. President Biden's failure to address rising tuition costs won't hurt the rich; only the middle- and lower-income Americans who will continue to be punished, forced to take out more and more loans just to get an education. I will close by urging all my colleagues to support my Congressional Review Act resolution to prevent President Biden's reckless student loan scheme and to work together on real solutions to tackle the rising cost and debt of students. If we don't act, students will continue to drown in debt without a path for success. (Mr. MARKEY assumed the Chair.)

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, it is my privilege now to speak to the pastor from my home State who gave the prayer today, the Reverend Asriel McLain of Shreveport. Reverend McLain is a graduate of Bishop College in Dallas, TX, and he earned his master of divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary. He has been a pastor, ministering to others in Louisiana, Texas, and Michigan. Reverend McLain is the son of Mrs. Mildred Oliver McLain and the late Reverend Claude Clifford, the former pastor of the historic Little Union Baptist Church, which was the epicenter of the civil rights movement in Shreveport. I had breakfast with Pastor McLain this morning and learned of the courage of his father and that of his congregation, while in the face of official oppression, in making sure that one Martin Luther King got to speak in Shreveport and that those in their community had a voice about how they wanted their community to evolve. The courage that his father showed and that the parish showed--I am an Episcopalian--that the congregation showed was quite remarkable. Much like his father, Reverend McLain has spent much of his life preserving the civil rights history of Louisiana, and much like his father, he is a man of profound faith and is a messenger of God's grace. He is a proud father of four kids and is a grandfather of four. He is also one of five siblings--Pat, John, Gene, and Clifford--and Clifford is here with him today. Pastor McLain is also accompanied by his son David and grandson Jayden. It was a pleasure to have Pastor McLain lead us in prayer today, and I look forward to perhaps having him join us once more. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, Social Security is a sacred trust between the American people and the American government. For the worker who is about to retire with no savings other than Social Security, the woman who relies on Social Security to pay for medications, they need to know that the government is not going to break this sacred trust. That is why I have been leading a bipartisan group of over a dozen Senators to develop a solution. And we have what we call the Big Idea. But before describing the Big Idea, I have to tell you, right now, it does not matter what big ideas--or any idea--are being discussed. President Biden made it clear in his State of the Union speech that he was going to run for reelection attacking Republicans on the issue of Social Security. Now, by the way, he has not introduced legislation on Social Security himself. He spoke about one in his previous campaign, but it was not serious. And the money he said he would use for his unserious plan he has already spent on other priorities, or at least proposed to spend. President Biden was not even willing to acknowledge the problem that Social Security faces. But, in a bipartisan sense, let's be fair; he is not alone. Former President Trump refuses to acknowledge the issue. He never introduced or sought to work with Congress when he was President, and now he criticizes anyone who suggests that Social Security might be going insolvent. But, unfortunately for us all, Social Security is going insolvent. It is not me who says this; it is the actuaries, those who are told to come before the American people and tell what is the current state of Social Security. They tell us that in 9 years, it is insolvent. At that point, beneficiaries will see a 24-percent cut in the amount they are receiving. There is no grandfathering in. You might be already receiving, but when that deadline hits--2033, 2032--boom, 24-percent cut for those who are currently receiving. Poverty among the elderly doubles. And even though it is against the law to borrow money to pay the difference between what is coming in and what is going out, let's imagine that we did. If we do decide to break the law and borrow that money, it would end up causing a $562 trillion debt to pay these benefits over the next 75 years. That would give us a debt-to-GDP ratio similar to that of Greece and Venezuela, and that is independent of the money that would be required for Medicare benefits and other such benefits. So what does our Big Idea do? Our Big Idea avoids this problem by setting up an investment fund separate from Social Security--no Social Security money whatsoever--an investment fund in which we place money and allow it to grow over 75 years; and, in so doing, we address 75 percent of the issue. We don't raise the retirement age to 70, as people suggest. We don't touch the way Social Security benefits are distributed. We make sure that no one has a disruption in their benefits that they are promised to receive. And in our plan, we have work incentives and we work to address issues of WEP and GPO and poverty among the elderly. It is an idea that could work and pass Congress, but there has been zero Presidential leadership. And we have had no engagement from this President, and there was no engagement from the previous President. So a few weeks ago, we decided to take our issue to the people, and we called it Bill on the Hill. Kind of a nice rhyme, huh? I took a walk around the Capitol grounds and spoke to Americans from across the country who were visiting the Nation's capital. There was a couple from Louisiana, a family from Pennsylvania, a veteran who is also a pastor from Massachusetts, and several others who gave their unvarnished opinions on what they want Washington to do about Social Security. The bottom line: Americans want to see Social Security saved. They-- we--deserve a real solution, not grandstanding. One blue-collar worker I spoke to from rural Pennsylvania told me--I am going to try and imitate his voice: Jobs that I have had haven't necessarily had retirement plans. He said it was ``very discouraging'' to hear a 24-percent cut was coming if we do nothing. There was a doctor from Opelousas. Now, this doctor has as much gray hair as I do, but, if you can imagine, he was once one of my former students. The doctor from Opelousas--Opelousas, LA, for those who don't know about that--he put it in stark terms when I told him that doing nothing means that poverty among his patients would double--among the elderly in general, but he has got a patient population a little bit older. He said the people he knows ``would have to start choosing between their medicines and food.'' Now, these are people who rely on Social Security, who put faith in that sacred trust that they would not have to choose between medicine and food. Yet that is the choice they are going to be forced to if we do nothing. And then there was Dr. Paul Kim--a pastor, a veteran--who was up here for a convention from Massachusetts. And he told me what he wanted from a President: He has to be honest and keep the promise [of Social Security]. Dr. Kim is right. The President needs to be honest with the American people about Social Security; but this President is not. He refuses to even acknowledge that the problem exists. The fact is, as I have already mentioned, Social Security--according to the actuaries, the people we entrust to tell us the state of it--is going insolvent in 9 years. But President Biden is steadfast in his position that there is nothing wrong, there is no need for a serious plan. Oh, yes, he introduced a plan when he was on the campaign trail; has done nothing since. And the money that he would use to pay for this unserious plan he has already proposed to spend on other things. By the way, $4.5 trillion he has proposed in new taxes and not a dime going to Social Security. And as I mentioned, it isn't just President Biden; it is former President Trump, who did nothing while he was President and, even now, criticizes people who wish to do something. It appears that the Biden-Trump plan is the same plan. It is a plan to do nothing and demagogue those who choose to responsibly address the issue. When I told one of these folks, the woman from Opelousas, LA, that President Biden and Donald Trump have the same plan, she was going: Whoa, whoa, that is something. But when she heard it was a plan to do nothing, her reaction was: I want to laugh, and I want to cry at the same time. Americans are watching as Washington flounders, as the deadline until retirees get a 24 percent cut approaches. By the way, we have seen polling on this. When people understand that the program is going insolvent in 9 years, 75 percent--from the very liberal to the very conservative and every point in between--think that we should address the issue now. That is the American people speaking, but that is not our leading Presidential candidates. We owe it to the American people to take this sacred trust seriously. We owe it to them to save Social Security before it is too late. Now, I am open to discussing my big idea, anyone else's idea. You name it. But there has to be a serious conversation. And since it has to be signed into law, a participant must be the President of the United States. We need the political courage from those who aspire to be our Nation's leader to actually show leadership. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Gwyn Shelley, an intern in my office, be granted floor privileges until June 13, 2023.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, last Tuesday, President Biden formally nominated Julie Su to be the Secretary of the Department of Labor. Now, as ranking member of the committee that oversees her nomination, I felt it was important to express some concerns that have only grown since her previous nomination. Deputy Secretary Su has a troubling record and is currently overseeing the Department of Labor's development of anti-worker regulations dismantling the gig economy. This does not inspire confidence in her current position, let alone confidence that she should be promoted. Ms. Su's record now and in her previous position as secretary for the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency deserves scrutiny. I look forward to a full review and hearing process for her nomination. In California, Ms. Su was a top architect of AB5, a controversial law that removed the flexibility of individuals to work as independent contractors. Now, independent contractors, you can call them freelancers. They make their own hours, and they choose the type of work they wish to do. I was recently taking a Lyft. The driver told me he was able to clear $500 a day. He has Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash on his phone. He flips between the apps, he chooses the job from whichever one is immediately available, and through it all, he clears 500 bucks a day. I said, wait a second, man, you gotta pay your gas, you gotta pay your insurance; are you still--Oh, yeah, I clear 500 a day. Now, if he is working five days a week, he is doing $10,000 a month. Independent contractors are shielded from forced or coerced unionization that could strip that flexibility away. This, of course, has made eliminating this classification a top priority for large labor unions who benefit from more workers being forced to pay mandatory union dues. Now, it is important to note, even in California, AB5 is extremely unpopular. And 59 percent of California voters supported a measure to exempt ride-share drivers from AB5. The law is so flawed, the Governor and State legislature have had to pass multiple laws to exempt over 100 occupations. The statutory exemptions are longer than the text of AB5 itself. But Ms. Su has taken her support for this anti-worker, pro-union policy to the U.S. Department of Labor. During her tenure as Deputy Secretary of Labor, essentially the Agency's chief operating officer, the Biden administration pushed to eliminate independent contracting via Federal Executive rulemaking. Now, there was never any hope of getting AB 5--an AB 5-like law through Congress, so they pursued their goals through regulation. And, if finalized, the new regulation strips 21 million Americans of their ability to classify themselves as independent contractors and enjoy the flexibility this provides. This regulation would undermine the business model of services like Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash that provide valuable services and give drivers the ability and freedom to set their own hours and even hop between States. I got off at the airport in New Orleans, Louis Armstrong International Airport, and the guy that picks me up has Maryland plates: Oh, yeah, I moved here like six months ago, wanted to come down for jazz fest, and so I just notified the different--you know, Uber and Lyft, and now I am down here working instead of back where I started. We are talking maximum flexibility. By the way, it is not just the Uber and Lyft drivers affected; truckers are severely impacted. Many truckers are independent owner-operators. They own their own trucks. This regulation could devastate the freedom of these truckers. It could potentially impact the supply chain in the process, as trucking moves more than 72 percent of the goods in the United States annually. Now, as a conservative from a conservative State--but I think as an American from any State--I can say that we don't need the application of a law from one of the most liberal States to the entire Nation. A law rejected in California is not a policy to be pursued on a Federal level. We need to support the right of workers and their ability to choose what is best for them, not put them in a straitjacket to serve other people's goals. I also want to hear Ms. Su's position on DOL's effort to uproot the franchise model, which employs over 8 million Americans. Deputy Secretary Su has made public comments indicating that she will pursue attempts at DOL to forcibly impose a joint employer classification on the almost 800,000 franchises operating in our communities, the same as any other small business. Sadly, franchisors with liability for thousands of franchise owners that actually operate the small business would be a sure way to destroy the system of franchising, a model which has allowed those underrepresented in the business community--women, people of color--to have the ability to live the American dream, becoming successful small business owners as they help create jobs, lifting other workers out of poverty. No one is surprised that the joint employer rule is a major priority for large labor unions. It is easier for them to pressure one company to unionize to increase their union dues than to pressure thousands of independent businesses. The priority of the Biden administration should not be to do whatever makes it easier to forcibly and coercively unionize workers while undermining the business models of the establishments they work for. It should be to increase individual freedom and opportunity. What comes to mind, there is a fellow north of Baton Rouge who moved here from West Africa to attend LSU. After he attended LSU, he became a citizen, and now he is a franchisor for multiple outlets. And he talks about the American dream: coming here from Nigeria as a transfer student; getting his citizenship; and now being an owner, involved in rotary, running for political office--a better American than most Americans. Somehow, this threatens the Department of Labor. Now, in addition to our policies, we should ask questions about how Ms. Su presided over a mismanaged California unemployment insurance program during the pandemic and why California paid $31 billion in fraudulent claims when she chose to suspend the eligibility determination process. Some of these payments went to inmates and known domestic and international criminals. To put into context, the Department of Labor's requested budget is $15 billion and employs more than 17,000 people. This means that Ms. Su lost more than double the annual budget of the Agency she will be responsible for managing in Washington, DC. This calls into question her qualifications as a manager. Unfortunately, there will be many reasons to be concerned about Ms. Su's nomination to head the Department of Labor, and I look forward to a full hearing process to further discuss. Student Loans Mr. President, today we introduced the Congressional Review Act, Resolution of Disapproval, to overturn the Biden administration's unfair student loan schemes that transfer the burden of $400 billion in Federal student loans from those who willingly took on that debt--and took on that debt to get a degree that would help them make more money--to American taxpayers who, perhaps, never went to college or already fulfilled their commitment to pay off their loans, oftentimes sacrificing to do so. The resolution would also end the pause on student loan payments, which, by August, will have cost taxpayers almost $200 billion. President Biden has extended this pause six times, for a total of 31 months, far beyond the original justification of an ongoing pandemic. I am joined by 38 of my colleagues in offering this resolution. Last August, President Biden announced his plan to cancel up to $20,000 in Federal student loans from most borrowers and to extend the payment and interest accrual pause in student loans via executive fiat. Make no mistake, this reckless student loan scheme does not forgive debt. It does not forgive debt at all. It just transfers the burden from those who willingly took out these loans for college--and, again, in order to make more money when they graduate--to Americans who never attended college and who have already paid off their loans. And I would ask: Where is the forgiveness for the guy who didn't go to college but bought a truck, went to work, and is now working to pay off that loan? Is his truck loan going to be forgiven? It will not be. And what about the woman who paid off her student loans but is now struggling to afford her mortgage? Does she get a refund to help her with the mortgage? Is the administration providing them relief? And the answer is no. Instead, the administration had to not only pay their bills, but the bills for those who decided to go to college in order to make more money and then have their student loans forgiven. This is irresponsible and unfair. And, by the way, the plan does nothing to address the problems that created the debt in the first place. It doesn't hold colleges or universities accountable for rising costs. According to the College Board, in the last 30 years, tuition and fees have jumped at private nonprofit colleges by 80 percent and at public 4-year institutions by 124 percent. And it doesn't ensure that students are prepared for life after college. Indeed, it creates a terrible moral hazard that tells students that Federal student loans aren't real commitments and tells colleges that no matter how high they raise their prices or what product they produce, the Federal Government will cover the tab, courtesy of the American taxpayer. Our resolution prevents average Americans, the 87 percent of whom currently have no student loans, from being stuck with a policy that the administration is doing, not to be fair to all but, rather, to favor the few. Our resolution also protects the rule of law, which President Biden must know he is violating. During Supreme Court arguments on the legality of the student loan forgiveness in February, Justice Roberts clearly indicated that if $400 billion was to be spent on student loan cancellation, it would and should require congressional approval. That has not been given. It is a clear example of this administration attempting to subvert Congress for what appears to be purely political purposes. It is a wildly dangerous precedent if left unchecked. For Americans who cannot afford their debt or want a proactive approach to paying off their loan commitments, Congress has already authorized--again, let me just say this. For someone who can't afford their debt or wishes to be proactive to pay off their loan commitments, Congress has already authorized 31 different programs to help pay or forgive student loans. I ask unanimous consent that the list of Federal programs already available to Americans who are struggling to repay their loans, work in public service, or who are in high-demand fields be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, they range from total forgiveness under public student loan forgiveness, the PSLF; Stafford loans for teachers; and Perkins loans cancellations for law enforcement officers, military, early childhood educators, and social workers, to name few. There are also repayment programs for high-demand fields, where education is specialized and the need is a public good. For example, through the Department of Health and Human Services, therapists and behavioral health providers who are needed to help our children as we face a mental health crisis are eligible for loan forgiveness. In addition, there are repayment policies related to the income of an individual. There are five different programs to keep payments low compared to an individual's income and to cap the total time for repayment. These are quite different from this mass transfer of debt under this reckless student loan scheme, which forgets that these existing programs were set up to target limited taxpayer resources to benefit those using their degrees to serve and to fill broader public needs or who can demonstrate that they, themselves, have a personal, individual need. By the way, what benefit does the GI bill hold when students can just wait to have their student loans forgiven? Why contribute to your community by teaching in a public school while getting your Federal loans paid off through your service when you can just wait for President Biden to forgive your loans? Irresponsible policies like President Biden's student loan scheme weaken these incentives and discourage Americans from going into public service. President Biden and Secretary Cardona, come to the table. There are real problems in the student loan system and Federal financing of higher education. Let's fix them legally through a lasting, bipartisan solution. I close by encouraging all my colleagues to join me in supporting this Congressional Review Act resolution to prevent this unconstitutional student loan forgiveness scheme. It is unfair to the hundreds of millions of Americans who will bear the burden of paying off hundreds of billions of dollars of someone else's student debt. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I am speaking about Social Security. Secretary Yellen spoke before the Senate Finance Committee last week, and, to me, it was incredibly frustrating. When asked if the President would be willing to work with Congress, she held up a piece of paper and read that he stands ready to work with Congress, to meet with Senators to find a solution to Social Security. We are speaking about the President personally meeting with us. There is no evidence that is true. That has not been our experience. It has been well reported in the press that there is a bipartisan-- bipartisan, bipartisan--group of Senators working to find a solution to save Social Security. The President knows this. We have been unable to get an appointment with the President. The reason we keep requesting a meeting with him is because we are told that no deal will be made without his personal signoff. He has to be the one who tells those who work for him that this is the deal he wants. So if the President chooses to do nothing, that choice guarantees that someone currently receiving Social Security will get a 24-percent cut in the benefits she receives. Let me just emphasize that. I was on talk radio with KEEL in Shreveport, LA. Erin McCarty says: Well, I will be OK. I don't know how old she is, but she thinks that, because she is of a certain age, she will not be affected. No, current law is, if the President chooses to do nothing, Erin and everyone else who would be currently receiving Social Security would get a 24-percent cut in their current benefits. Someone who is depending upon this income to pay her bills and buy her groceries, she gets a 24-percent cut in the amount she is receiving. There needs to be a choice between a massive, by law, 24-percent benefit cut--again, current law--and a real plan, a real choice to strengthen, to save, and to secure Social Security. To reference President Reagan, this is a time for choosing. We can't wait because the longer we wait, the more expensive and the more drastic the solution becomes. And we shouldn't allow politicians to use Social Security as a political weapon to beat people into submission to claim that one side wishes to do something and they are going to rescue it while offering nothing to stop this scheduled 24-percent cut. It may be good politics, but it is irresponsible. I will point out that President Biden's two Democratic predecessors, Obama and Clinton, both offered serious plans to address this looming Social Security fiscal cliff; President Biden, no plan, not in his budget. In fact, when I asked Secretary Yellen if they had modeled any of the things she was referencing as a solution, they have not modeled it, which tells me they have not worked on it. There should absolutely be a sense of urgency. He should feel it the way that I feel it. I used to work in a hospital for the uninsured. Many of my poor patients depended upon Social Security to pay their rent, to buy their groceries, to pay their utilities. I know what a 24- percent cut would mean to them. By the way, on the solutions that we have been trying to come up with--an approach, if you will, certainly not a final plan--there is a lot of partial and inaccurate information. By the way, we did that on purpose. The President has a right to have an imprint upon the final thing that we come up with. So we have things which are, yes, we could do it this way, but maybe do something else. We do add something to it, though. We think it is a novel solution that helps Social Security bridge the solvency and protects the Americans that rely upon it. We have added some things. One thing we have spoken about, perhaps locally but not nationally, is that those who are most cut by a 24- percent cut will be the police officers, firefighters, teachers, and many other State and local government officials who are unfairly penalized by two provisions in current law known as WEP and GPO. From my perspective, repealing WEP and GPO should be part of any conversation we have with the President, if he agrees to meet, and should be part of any final proposal. But Americans of all generations--the Silent Generation, baby boomers, Gen X, Gen Z--they want to know that the program they paid into their entire lives will be there when they need it. It is a political truth that some issues are seen as a ``political third rail.'' I say choosing to do nothing, which means choosing that Social Security benefits will be cut by 24 percent, should be the third rail. We can't be guided by the fear of politics. We should be guided by the courage of our commitment to the American people and, particularly, that American senior--that he or she will not get this 24-percent cut. I ask once more: President Biden, please personally meet with a bipartisan group of Senators. If I said something I shouldn't have to Secretary Yellen, I will, at that point, apologize. President Biden has a reputation as a dealmaker. Let's make a deal. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following letter from the Government Accountability Office be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise today to formally enter a legal opinion from the Government Accountability Office into the Record. The contents of this legal opinion confirms that the Biden administration's reckless student loan scheme has gone too far, violated process, and must be submitted to Congress as a rule, subject to the Congressional Review Act. The Biden administration proposes to transfer the burden of $400 billion in Federal student loans onto taxpayers, citing COVID-19. The administration continues to charge the U.S. Treasury $5 billion per month to extend the loan pause, preventing any return to repayment on student loans while it works to cancel them. Meanwhile, Americans who chose not to attend college or already sacrificed to pay off their loans will be forced to carry the burden of the student debt from those who willingly took on these loans. GAO's determination means that the Biden administration is not playing by the laws of this land in attempting to implement their mass student loan scheme and extend the payment pause via executive fiat. This GAO legal opinion will allow Congress to exercise its oversight prerogative and move forward with a Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval, while we await a Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of the policy. I implore all of my colleagues to join me in support of a Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval to stand for the 87 percent of Americans who chose not to take student loans or paid off their debt responsibly. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following letter from the Government Accountability Office be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I am here to speak about the Congressional Review Act that the Senate and House passed this week on a bipartisan basis and particularly about the President's decision to veto that Congressional Review Act. Now, protecting Americans' property is what government should do-- period; end of story. The American people deserve to know that the property that they invest in for their retirement is going to go to its highest, best use; that the person managing that money is going to make sure they maximize the return so that the couple, the family, the individual investing in that retirement is making the wisest decisions for their future. Instead, President Biden's new environmental and social governance rule authorizes those who manage that money to prioritize President Biden's political agenda over the long-term financial health of the retirement fund of that fellow American. Think about that. It isn't what is best for their retirement, in their golden years when they are 65, 70, when they have to retire. It is what President Biden wishes to do now as a political agenda. He is willing to jeopardize the retirement of the 152 million Americans who are planning for their future to fulfill his political goal. Now, it is easy to speak about 152 million people. Let's bring it down to the young couple. They are 28 years old. They just had their first child. They are feeling responsible. They are feeling like they need to put money aside so that--my gosh, it seems so far away--when they retire, they have taken care of their financial future. And they read the literature. If the return on my investment is 1 percent more, I have a much better life. If it is 0.5 or 1 percent less, I have not as good of a life because that is the power of compounding. Over that long period of time, that little bit of extra which continues to compound makes the difference sometimes between having to continue to work and the ability to buy the RV, take off west, and to see the Grand Canyon. That is kind of putting a human face upon this. Congress knew that. When the President said that he was going to endorse this rule-- promulgated it, if you will, put it out there--that told the asset managers, ``Don't prioritize the best return on the investment; prioritize what we tell you is the better way to invest the dollars for our political goals,'' Congress voted on a bipartisan basis to end this ESG rule and to stand up for that American worker and that American family who are diligently saving and depend upon the best rate of return to securely retire. Now, instead of joining Congress and supporting the workers, protecting their retirement, the President announced he will veto the effort. Oh, he doesn't say that he is going to do it to hurt their long-term retirement plans, but that is absolutely what it does. It puts window dressing around it: He is saving the planet. You name this; you name that. He is hurting their retirement plan, and he knows it, but that is of secondary importance to him. Now, by the way, for Louisiana energy workers, this is more than a betrayal of their retirement. It weaponizes their retirement accounts not just against their future but also against their present. Those energy workers who are helping to produce the natural gas and the oil that is fueling our modern economy, that is helping to send natural gas overseas to Europe so that they can better withstand the financial and the energy pressure exerted by Russia over their economies, they are going to be hurt because this ESG rule will tell these financial institutions not to put as much capital into the development of this essential oil and natural gas for both our economy, for our European allies, and, by the way, for natural gas, in terms of helping to decrease global carbon emissions, and--did I say it--for the retirement accounts of these workers. It is another effort by Washington, DC, Democrats to dismantle America's energy economy, which has the byproduct--the very unfortunate byproduct, I suppose--of killing the jobs of millions of Americans. Those investment managers helping to plan the retirement of these workers should help these workers achieve their best retirement plans. That is not necessarily the goal of the Biden administration. It is not necessarily the goal of academia or the environmental activists. But it is the savers' money; it is not Joe Biden's. There is still time for the President to rethink his veto threat. The President says he is for supporting workers. Then show it. He says he is for those who do less well in our economy. Then show it. This ESG policy will make things worse for them. Don't veto. Allow it to go through. Supporting American workers means supporting their jobs now and supporting their retirement savings. I urge him to sign this bill. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASSIDY

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