Bill Cassidy

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I have had many experiences presiding when you have gotten up to speak about energy and climate. So now the roles are reversed, and I will take a perspective somewhat similar to yours in the past but perhaps a little bit broader. We are in a point in time where it is clear that there is a nexus between energy, climate, economic security for a family and for a nation, and national security. And if we ignore any one, if we overemphasize one and forget the rest, then we lose all four. I will just share the example we have right now. The administration has clearly prioritized climate in such a way that they have attempted to decrease the amount of fossil fuel being produced in the United States of America and limit the exports of that fuel. Because of that singular emphasis, we are now at a point where we have endangered the economy of many--not ``we'' but circumstances around the world have endangered the economies of the European countries dependent upon Russian oil. It has endangered the pocketbook of the families that cannot afford $4- to $6-a-gallon gasoline, depending upon where you live. And the climate globally is worse. Because there are inadequate amounts of liquefied natural gas going to Europe, they are going to burn tremendous amounts of coal, and that coal, of course, will have a greenhouse gas profile that is far greater than that of natural gas. So the question is, How do we achieve all of our goals: the climate, the national security, the pocketbook issues for families and for our nation, as well as our energy security? So that is what I wish to speak about today. Now, of course, we know there is a tension here, and the tension here is between this kind of almost battle we have been having in our country: How do we develop America's resources, but how do we do it while at the same time lowering carbon intensity? If one party is in charge of the regulatory state, then they will attempt to use regulatory power to choke off the amount of carbon coming from America's resources. I am speaking of fossil fuel resources at this point. But, as I mentioned, it seems that with this backdrop of a need globally to be free of Russian energy, we need to have a different approach--acknowledging totally those who are concerned about carbon intensity; acknowledging totally the Europeans who are now so vulnerable to Russian energy shortages; acknowledging totally the family at home with the 10-year-old pickup truck who can't afford to fill it up to get to work. Mr. President, let's set the stage. Europe depends on Russia for 40 percent of its natural gas supplies. Some countries in Europe depend upon Russia for 90 percent of their natural gas supplies. In 2013, the EU imported 135 billion cubic meters of Russian natural gas and in 2019, 166 billion cubic meters. One reason we need to export liquefied natural gas is to decrease that reliance upon Russian natural gas. By the way, one of the reasons that the EU is using more natural gas is that the carbon footprint of natural gas is so much less than that of coal. So using gas was a way to achieve that which the United States has achieved--an ability to decrease your carbon emissions by changing from coal to natural gas. Our goal here is to help the Europeans continue not just that transition away from coal to lower their carbon intensity but also to help them decrease, lower their dependence upon Russia as regards overall their use of natural gas. There is a way to get at this within the next 10 months--to lower global greenhouse gas emissions, to help the Europeans be freer from Russian gas--in a way which actually does not involve increased production here in the United States. When I speak of our goals here, it isn't just to pump more out of the United States; it is to solve a global problem. An Italian energy executive with whom I spoke mentioned how in North Africa, they are using natural gas. They ship a certain amount of it to Italy, and then it goes to the rest of the continent. But the tanks coming from North Africa are about 50 percent full, and there is a liquefied natural gas terminal in Egypt which is way below capacity. Why? Because the population growth in North Africa has been so great and the number of people getting electricity has increased so dramatically that the natural gas they used to ship to Europe is now being used domestically. But the powerplants they are using to burn the natural gas are antiquated. They don't burn efficiently. The emission profile of these natural gas powerplants is much greater than that which is state of the art. So this gentleman in Italy had a great idea. He said: Why don't we build out in the near term a $10 billion investment of solar panels in North Africa? It would seem like there is no better place in the world to do solar panels than the Sahara Desert. So if you did solar panels in Africa and you are exchanging the electrons from the solar panels for the electrons being burned in antiquated natural gas facilities, that gas would then be freed up to be shipped to Africa. It doesn't increase--in fact, it decreases the net amount of natural gas being built, but it does it in a way that it delivers the gas where it is going to be burned in a more environmentally friendly way. But it has economic development, and it has the substitution of solar for gas in North Africa. This is a win and a win and a win. What is the U.S. role here? Well, the U.S. role can take our DFC, which is our financing corporation for overseas development, and I am told that if we just put up 5 percent of the amount, that sends a message to other investors that this has the support of the U.S. Government and that they can step in here and make an investment too. Solar panels of that magnitude is a big project. On the other hand, it is something which can be done in the near term. In that near term, we are able to increase the supply of natural gas to Europe, while decreasing global greenhouse gas emissions. That is something we can do now. It does raise the question--someone said: Building that many solar panels, surely there would be some issues. It is my impression, at least, that there is far more open ground in the desert than there is in the cities but also that the regulatory burden in order to deploy solar panels is a lot less in Africa, which kind of takes me to my next issue. We have the ability to increase our export of liquefied natural gas, to increase the deployment of renewables here in the United States, to mine the uranium that would replace the Russian uranium we get for nuclear but also replace the Russian uranium the Europeans use. We have the ability to do that, but we are just locked up with regulations. I am not saying do away with the regulations; I am saying do something different in terms of how we regulate. We actually have a model for this. We saw at the beginning of the COVID pandemic that we had multiple Federal Agencies responsible for approving a new vaccine. They would kind of get to each other's issue and request when they got to each other's issue and request. So it could take 2\1/2\ years to have a new vaccine approved by regulation in order to even begin testing, much less to show that it worked and to begin to deploy. The previous administration, working with the different Agencies--I visualize it as bringing everybody in a room, and if somebody had a question, they would turn this question over to somebody else, and they had to sit there at that table until they resolved it, and then they gave it back, not ``Hey, listen, send it over here, and we will have it back to you in 4 weeks.'' No. ``Send it over here, and we will have it back to you in 3 days.'' They compressed the time so that a vaccine, which, optimistically, we were hoping would be ready in 3 years, ended up being ready in less than 1. There is always a concern that if you compress that timeframe, you have to sacrifice safety, but there is no evidence that occurred with the coronavirus vaccine. In the same way, if we have multiple Agencies right now that are in charge of permitting some aspect of energy--whether it is renewable, whether it is mining, whether it is export--there can be an Operation Warp Speed for how they work together to bring our energy resources to bear and helping the Europeans become free of Russian energy. It is not just lowering the price at the pump for us, because you can argue that is going to be very difficult to do in the near term. What it can be, though, is to keep the Europeans from going into a recession or a depression next winter because the demand for fuel is so great and they are unable to meet it. And if they don't have some substitute for Russian energy and if the Russians decide to cut them off, they end up freezing, going energy poor, or having their industries crater because of a lack of energy. One more time, this is a nexus. We can do this in a way that is environmentally friendly, producing the energy and exporting it in such a way that lowers global greenhouse gas emissions, because what is driving us right now is the economy of countries and the economy of families. If European families are energy poor, they will lose their political will to stand up to the Russians, and we will lose our ally. We have to support not just our families but theirs so that they can get through this economically; so that, one, they can more afford life; but, secondly, so that we can maintain political will as we stand up against the Russians. There are other aspects of this, as well. For those interested in battery technology, most of the critical minerals are coming from Russian or Chinese sources. If we are concerned about climate and we are concerned about the ability to be critical mineral independent in case of geopolitical tension, this is the exact same issue that we have been speaking about. How do we proceed? One, we just have to recognize that we are at a time of extreme geopolitical tension where decisions we make in this country have ramifications worldwide. The Europeans are looking to us to help them with their energy crisis, and if we fail to help the Europeans with their energy crisis, the Europeans will pay as much as 6,000 euros more a year per family for their energy, and they will probably go into a deep recession. On the other hand, if we are able to solve this for the Europeans, we will also solve it for our families, the ones who are paying $4 to $6 for a gallon of gasoline. We know what we are speaking about. Just to show that this can be done, as the United States has substituted natural gas for coal, we have lowered our domestic emissions by 14 percent at a time when global emissions have risen 4 percent. In that time, since 2005, where we lowered our emissions by 14 percent, our economy is larger. We have millions more people and we are domestically producing much more oil and gas, and there has been a subsequent return of energy-related industry to the United States. So despite an industrial profile and a mining profile and a population profile that would suggest that there would be greater emissions, we actually have 14 percent less than 2005. We did it by acknowledging that domestic production of energy was going to help with our economy, help with the economy of families, but also help our domestic security, and would also help climate and the carbon intensity of our society. We have done this for our country. Now the question is, Can we do it for the world? I would argue that if we choose not to, the Russians will win. There is no way that Europe or Europeans are going to accept energy poverty with a crater economy due to the lack of affordable energy. On the other hand, if we are able to make this commitment doing things such as financing for solar panels in North Africa, an Operation Warp Speed for energy to bring our energy resources to bear, the continued substitution of lower carbon intensity energy sources for that which currently is higher carbon intensity, then, we can accomplish worldwide that which we have accomplished here in the United States, which is to lower greenhouse gas emissions while making a more prosperous society and increasing domestic and international security. This is not theoretical. I have spoken with someone who could have an offshore LNG export facility completed in 12 months, if he had his permits from the Federal Government. I spoke to someone involved with drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf and learned that their company could be sending oil to the refineries in Louisiana within 12 months if they could get their permits done expeditiously. And I can give list after list of renewable, of fossil, and otherwise. It is now the time for the United States to take leadership. If we don't, our families will continue to suffer at the pump, Europeans will enter a recession, and, most unfortunately, the cause of freedom worldwide will be harmed by Russia's continued economic hegemony over the rest of the world because of their energy. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Stephen Lewerenz, an intern in my office, be granted floor privileges until March 17, 2022.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I am rising to support the amendment that my colleague Senator John Kennedy will introduce. So I will speak before he introduces it, but I speak in support thereof. Senator Kennedy is going to introduce an amendment that would increase and that would grant disaster relief in several regions of the country, but I speak on behalf of those in Southwest Louisiana. A picture tells a thousand words. If you recall back 3 years ago, Hurricane Laura hit Southwest Louisiana. Two weeks later, almost on the exact same track, Hurricane Delta followed up, destroying that which had not already been destroyed by Hurricane Laura. The devastation of these storms was dramatic. Now I thank the American people. There has been aid that has been given by fellow Americans to these communities, but it has been less than what is required. And flying over, the picture tells a thousand words. There are still blue tarps on top of roofs years after the storm has hit. And for those who are unfamiliar with it, blue tarps are when the roof has been destroyed, you place the tarp so that it hopefully provides protection that shingles otherwise would. When you are on the ground and you go through the neighborhood, there are homes that are blighted, boarded up, and as they have been boarded up, criminals have come in and businesses have closed. This particularly affects lower income communities. Those who have more resources, they will recover, but those folks who need a little extra help, they are not. And so, as we think about the aid that my fellow Americans are asked to give to their fellow Americans, I just will give some statistics. Hurricane Laura cost $19 billion in damages; Hurricane Delta another $3 billion; and Ida, of course, not only hit Southwest Louisiana, but cost $75 billion in damages from Louisiana to New York. There is a lot that has happened. I ask for additional support as outlined in my colleague John Kennedy's amendment to finish the recovery for these folks who have endured so much. I humbly ask my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I'll add to what my colleague, John Kennedy, said. If you fly over southwest Louisiana, you see blue tarps. Those tarps are there because the families have not had the money to replace their roofs. If you get on the ground, you see blighted neighborhoods. Those blighted neighborhoods are where people have moved, the rooms are boarded up, criminals have entered, and those who have left are now prey to criminals. And as they have left, the businesses have closed. We do so much in this country for those who have been injured, and we appreciate in South Louisiana all that has already been done. But there is a little bit more needed to particularly benefit those who are less well-off. So I join my colleague, Senator Kennedy, in requesting that additional funding to complete the job started so Southwest Louisiana can become whole once more. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I had the privilege to listen to my colleague from California's oration and the privilege to hear many of the things spoken, both by the President and by colleagues here in the Senate, as regards to the voting rights bill that is here before us today. I want to start off with the President's comments because I think it frames the debate, if you will, in terms of how it is being framed to the American people. The President considers Georgia's new law as Jim Crow. That is a manipulative statement. It is a cynical statement. It tries to make people think that 2022 is the same as 1965, which is laced with incredible irony, as our country has seen an African-American President, an African-American Vice President, and Lieutenant Governors of Virginia and Kentucky who are African American. Then, to brag of my own State, as long as things are being seen through certain prisms, we have Louisiana's Bobby Jindal, who is ethnically from India, who was our Governor, and the first Vietnamese American elected to the U.S. Congress. In fact, Louisiana has had a White elected mayor of predominantly African-American New Orleans and a Black elected mayor of predominantly White Baton Rouge. But no, this statement is somehow manipulating people to think that we are back in Bull Connor days. Well, if this is Jim Crow, then States like Delaware must be Jim Crow 2.0. Why is there not an outcry against Delaware? I will point out that Georgia has more permissive voting laws than Delaware, more early voting days than Delaware, no-excuse absentee voting, which, by the way, the voters of New York recently rejected. Georgia now makes ballot drop boxes permanent, which was not the case before the pandemic. Much has been made about restricting the number of drop boxes. I have been told that the one county pointed to is actually a ruby red Republican county in which they dropped down to one. If this is being done for partisan advantage, my gosh, they are not doing a very good job of partisan maneuvering, but I would argue that this bill is a wonderful example of partisan maneuvering. What does it do? It is a Federal takeover of elections. This innovation that the previous speaker, my colleague from California, was speaking of now has to run the gamut of a Federal official who says yea or who says nay. It funnels tax dollars to fund political campaigns no matter how fringe that person's perspective might be, who no self-respecting donor would give money to online or in person, but because of this law, my gosh, they have got a chance. It bans commonsense voter ID laws. Now, there is this kind of myth being promulgated that States are putting up these onerous laws that cannot be complied with. Courts reject those laws. Courts do not allow a State to use a mandated picture ID, issued by the State, as an ID, and to say so is manipulative. It is manipulative in the worst way. Courts decide the threshold, and courts decide what is reasonable and is unreasonable, and to suggest otherwise one more time is an attempt to manipulate people into thinking that 2022 is 1965, with all of the implications thereof and all of the harm that does to our body politic. Shame. It also allows unlimited ballot harvesting--and, I think, California might be the only State to have it in place--where you go to a homeless shelter and have people sign up who might be addicted, mentally ill, brain damaged and have them sign for a certain candidate. Now, you can imagine a well-paid activist--because this bill allows activists to be paid--might discard those ballots which are not for her candidate and keep only those for their own candidate. This bill requires that all 50 States have it; whereas, in North Carolina, they actually booted a candidate because he used ballot harvesting. It also prohibits States from cleaning up their voter rolls. Now, somehow, this is now wrong. I actually come from Louisiana, a State hit by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. After 2005, it was a tragedy for my State, but we had tens of thousands of people who moved to other States. Now, at some point, they registered to vote in Atlanta or in Houston or in Dallas, and our secretary of state went back and said: Hmm, you are on a voter roll in Louisiana, and you are on a voter roll in Georgia. It appears that you are now paying taxes in Georgia. We are going to drop you from our rolls. Is anything wrong with that? Is anything wrong with pointing out that somebody is registered to vote in two different States and then saying, ``You are paying taxes there, so we are going to remove you from our rolls here''? Lastly, I will say this: It puts Democrats in charge of the FEC, a neutral organization enforcing voter laws. I can imagine, as soon as Republicans take charge again, we are going to do the same thing back to the other side. We are going to attempt to manipulate voting laws to our advantage, and it is not above either party to do that. So--I hate to use this word, but to sanctimoniously declare that this bill is the end of history; that partisanship is behind us; that, by golly, these laws are going to be put in place, and forever after, we are going to live harmoniously, is to not understand Washington, DC, where every edge is sought, and whenever it is sought, it is exploited to keep your particular party in power. I say this as a Republican: I don't trust my party any more than I trust their party. I trust the States and the courts to oversee them, but this bill usurps that responsibility. Now, you can say that maybe this power grab is merely in place to distract from real issues, and there is something to be said to that. We are debating this--whether or not to require all 50 States to allow ballot harvesting--when we have the highest rate of inflation than we have had in over 40 years; when Russians are about to invade Ukraine, apparently; when there are people pouring across our southern border and there is a looming humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan and the COVID response is kind of being caught up with, not being preemptively addressed, and we are discussing this. Filibuster Mr. President, let me mention one more thing--the filibuster. I was in an interview today about the surprise medical billing bill. My colleague from New Hampshire, who I think was in the Chamber earlier, helped to put that together. Multiple colleagues ended up coming together on that. It took us 2 to 3 years to get it done, the surprise medical billing. As of January 1 of this year, if you get a surprise medical bill, there is a 1-800 number to call, and you get help. Why did it take us 2 years? We had to listen to stakeholders. We had to get legislation that works for all. We had to go to this Republican, that Democrat, this committee in the Senate, that committee in the House; working with a broad coalition; even maybe, at the end, it slipping away; but we managed to pull it together, and we passed surprise medical billing, and it was better because of that process. Now, that is in contrast to a bill in which a majority of Democrats in the House and the Senate, with the President, can force through without any input from Republicans, from the 50 percent of the United States that voted for the other side. Well, let's guess whose advantage that bill is going to be for. It doesn't take much to imagine. What Mitt Romney said on the Sunday morning show--did the White House ever call you about this voting bill? Mitt Romney said: Never called me. That made it clear there was no effort to make this bipartisan. We are going to break this 200-year-old filibuster that requires us to come together to find common ground--that gives us bills that are stronger because of it--because of a desire for partisan advantage and knowing that once we break it and Republicans take it back, we are going to use it the same way. This is wrong. This is wrong for our country. It is wrong for our institution. I suppose that is why 16 of my Democratic colleagues signed a letter last year--when, by the way, Republicans were in control--saying that we should preserve the filibuster. It was recently stated that there is a disease of division infecting our country. That is true. And blowing up the filibuster removes one of the last things that make us come together. That is wrong, and that will be tragic, however--however--it is framed. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to the following member of my staff: John Wright Picard, an intern.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Tommy Williams of Baton Rouge, LA, on his retirement from the Louisiana Community and Technical College System, LCTCS. Serving as the executive director for governmental affairs of LCTCS for 13 years, Mr. Williams made monumental strides for the system, including one of his major legislative accomplishments: ACT 360, which appropriated $500 million in capital improvements to all 12 LCTCS campuses throughout the great State of Louisiana. Prior to his service at LCTCS, Mr. Williams wore many hats during his tenure at BellSouth, which spanned almost four decades. Serving as the company's executive director for legislative affairs in Louisiana, he represented the interests of BellSouth before the Louisiana State Legislature in numerous regular and special sessions. He served as BellSouth's Houma and Baton Rouge district manager, as well as vice president for regulatory and external affairs from 2003-2006. In addition to the lengthy list of professional accomplishments, Mr. Williams and his wife of 56 years, Ms. Bonnie Williams, devoted countless hours of their time volunteering for community-based nonprofit organizations. Mr. and Mrs. Williams are the proud parents of four, grandparents of eight, and great-grandparents of three. The State of Louisiana and all who have benefited from Mr. Williams's impressive efforts thank him for his diligent work. There is no doubt that his legacy will live on in the years to come and will serve as an inspiration to the next generation of community builders and leaders.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Pretty handsome guy, huh? Real handsome guy in his dress blues. Today, the citizens of Lake Charles in the State of Louisiana and our country mourn the loss of this U.S. Navy SEAL and commander of SEAL Team 8. Commander Bourgeois, Brian Bourgeois, died from injuries suffered during a training accident Saturday. We lost a SEAL, a dedicated patriot, a son, husband, father, and hero. Commander Bourgeois was born 43 years ago in Lake Charles, LA. He dedicated his adult life to family and to service to our country. He began by enrolling in the U.S. Naval Academy, from which he graduated in May 2001. During his two-decade-long career, Commander Bourgeois served honorably, led his men bravely, and made our country proud. The long list of honors and medals Commander Bourgeois earned for his service to our country includes a Bronze Star marked with a ``V,'' denoting heroic acts performed during combat; two Defense Meritorious Service Medals; a Joint Service Commendation Medal; two Marine Corps Commendation Medals; two Marine Corps Achievement Medals; a Combat Action Ribbon; a National Defense Service Medal; an Iraq Campaign Medal; and a Global War on Terrorism Service Medal. He was as decorated as he was loved. At the annual Army-Navy game scheduled for this weekend, to honor Commander Bourgeois--a brother and former member of the Midshipmen football team--the Navy team will run out onto the field with a flag of SEAL Team 8. That banner, representing his spirit, will fly alongside the American flag, the Navy flag, and the Marine Corps flag. The Navy Football Brotherhood, a nonprofit organization aimed at supporting the families of their fallen teammates, is leading fundraising efforts to help support the Bourgeois family. Our country has and always will depend on our most noble answering the call to serve. To his wife Megan and five children, your father represents the best of our Nation. He is a hero who dedicated his life to defending our country and protecting the lives of every American. For that, we will be forever grateful and shall never forget his service and sacrifice. Please join me in taking this moment in silent prayer for Commander Bourgeois, his family, and all who loved and knew him. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, we have a crisis here in the United States, which we cannot keep ignoring. After the pandemic hit, we took our eyes off the issue of opioid and other drug overdoses. We have made tremendous progress over the previous 4 years. The Trump Administration made it a priority. Congress has made it a priority. We have funded multiple programs, and we have seen that the incidence rate of drug overdose was decreasing and for opioids in particular. But with the lockdown and the personal stress this led to, we have seen an uptick once more in these opioid deaths. From April 2020 to April 2021, we saw over 100,000 overdoses linked to opioids and other overdoses beyond that, and fentanyl causing 64 percent of them. Now, we talk about statistics, but we sometimes, in those statistics, lose the human dimension. I remember a 911 call I once heard, and in it there was a frantic woman calling because her husband was overdosed: Please come help. And that is tragic, but you almost become used to it. What brought tears to your eyes was that in the background you heard the baby crying. Now, it is easy to imagine, one, what that child's life is now--the child of an addict--but it is also easy to imagine what the child's future is with a single parent having to deal with the death of a father and all that means. It is not just the opioid death. It is the opioid family that has to bear the burden of the loss: first, to addiction and then, secondly, to death. Now, there is a unique role here for the country of China. We don't know that it is the Chinese Government, but we certainly know it is the country of China. Fentanyl is a synthetic poison that is taking the lives of so many of these who die from opioid addiction--certainly true in my State, Louisiana. The country of China's role in this opioid crisis is by providing the chemicals to the Mexican and South American cartels, which take those raw chemicals and make them into the fentanyl that then comes into our country. And this is what is causing the addiction. Now, by the way, opioid addiction is incredibly powerful. In another story from when I was a practicing physician, in the emergency room, at 3 in the morning, where the grandmother was there with the addict daughter, and the child--grandchild of the grandmother, child of the addict--was crying because the grandmother was taking the child away from his mother. The mother didn't care. And it struck me that if something is so powerful to disrupt the relationship between a mother and her child, the power of that cannot be ignored. So when we look at these drugs that people are addicted to, we have to understand the hold they have upon their physiology, their emotional life, their psychology--in a sum, their whole life. So what can we do? We can't just give up. We have to make a pushback for the sake of those who are in addiction and the family members that they have. So we need to modernize our customs process. I have a Customs Modernization Act, which will crack down on the illicit trade, if you will, the way that the cartels are financing and moving drugs across the border. If we can address that, we can address the supply, and we can decrease the number of people who have access to these drugs. Today, I introduce the HALT Fentanyl Act to make permanent the temporary schedule I of fentanyl analogs. What this means is that in an effort to evade our laws, the cartels will make some little analog-- just a little bit different from regular fentanyl, which is regulated-- but, nonetheless, has the addictive potential and the ability to kill of regular fentanyl. And this will allow us to combat the criminals and to hold the companies in China responsible. The next thing we have to do is start by closing down our southern border. It is not just the migrants who are coming across but tens of thousands of pounds of drugs. We are now seizing more fentanyl and meth than we ever have before. Even the DEA Administrator, Anne Milgram, agrees that drugs flowing across the border are fueling the opioid crisis. She said this on national TV: ``The real problem are the criminal drug networks in Mexico.'' She says fentanyl and meth are being ``mass produced in Mexico,'' sourcing chemicals mostly coming from China, and they are ``driving the overdose deaths''. We have a responsibility to our fellow Americans. Perhaps I feel it more acutely as a physician who has been with those patients and their families who are fighting addiction, but we should all feel the pain of that child crying as her mother was calling for 911 to come assist the father who had stopped breathing from an overdose. So let us redouble our efforts and hope others will join on both the Customs Modernization Act and the HALT Fentanyl Act in order to, in one more way, protect Americans from the deadly scourge of these drugs coming from China, through Mexico, across our border and, unfortunately, into the bodies of those who are dying. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and thank Dr. Joyce Turner Keller and her organization Aspirations for 20 years in the fight to end HIV/AIDS. Aspirations' mission is to serve the needs of hurting people, regardless of race, creed, gender, age, or social class affected by the HIV/AIDS virus. Established in 2001, they have provided a much needed service to our region by providing free testing, education, support groups, and numerous other options to those who are fighting this virus. Its founder, Dr. Joyce Turner Keller, has made it her life's mission to be a face of the invisible that are living and surviving with HIV/AIDS. As a doctor, I treated uninsured HIV/AIDS patients and saw firsthand the pain this disease can cause. Dr. Joyce Turner Keller has used her God-given talents to care for the underserved and the stigmatized. I commend her on her work and the work of Aspirations these last 20 years.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, we need to talk about the opioid crisis. The 2020 data shows the largest annual increase in opioid deaths in the last 50 years. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 69,710 Americans died last year from opioid-related overdoses, a 37-percent increase from 2019. In Louisiana, the opioid crisis is getting worse--and fast. In 2020, our State, Louisiana, saw a serious spike and the steepest surge in drug overdose deaths in the Nation. Louisiana drug overdose deaths surpassed a record high 2,100 in the 12 months leading up to March 2021. Overdose mortality increased statewide by over 56 percent last year. These numbers are devastating. Last year, opioid deaths increased, for example, in New Orleans by 51 percent with 365 OD deaths, 69 percent in Jefferson Parish, 35 percent in St. Tammany, and a 64- percent increase in St. Bernard Parish. Deaths continue to climb throughout the State. In Alexandria, Acadian Ambulance ``responded to nearly 160 calls of opioid overdoses just in Rapides Parish--an average of over one call per day.'' East Baton Rouge Parish, the State capital, is seeing significant increases in fatal overdoses. According to a local TV station and the coroner's office, 242 people died of an overdose in 2020. This year, through September, the East Baton Rouge Parish has seen 214 fatal overdoses, again, in the first 9 months of this year. Now, the double tragedy of this is that these deaths are preventable. In 2018, Congress passed landmark opioid legislation, and for the first time in almost 30 years, the number of opioid deaths decreased. Then the pandemic hit. Louisiana became the top State in drug overdose growth during COVID-19. The pressure of the pandemic, the subsequent influx of fentanyl from other countries--all this increased drug addiction and, hence, drug death. After a year of lockdown, social isolation, and stress, the opioid-related deaths shot through the roof. Now, the opioid crisis is an epidemic. We should treat it like one. It took a backseat to COVID during the pandemic, but it is time we bring renewed attention to the opioid crisis because, for opioids, there is no vaccine. Over 1,900 folks in Louisiana lost their lives to drug overdose last year--again, a 48-percent increase from 2019. We must be aware that these are not just statistics; they are lives. They are mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, and friends losing their lives to addiction and being lost to others because of addiction. It is a national crisis, a statistical crisis, and, most importantly, a personal crisis. And as the numbers speak for themselves, we feel it throughout Louisiana and our Nation. We need to act now before more lives are lost. The crisis must be met head-on at all levels. We need to work with local leaders to make sure we implement opioid policies like the ones Congress has already passed in CARA and the SUPPORT Act. These provide resources to stop illegal drugs at the border, support the discovery of nonaddictive painkillers, and deliver treatment to those already addicted. Every day we don't take action, another mother loses a child, a son loses a father, and a wife loses a husband. I am committed to solving this crisis and to saving these lives. Let's come together as a Congress and rededicate ourselves to solving the opioid epidemic. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, the IRS should not have the right to spy on American bank accounts, period. We all know the list of reasons why the Democrats' $3.5 trillion tax- and-spend spree is a disaster. It will bury the American people in a mountain of debt, crushing inflation, and require new taxes. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, nonpartisan, warns that this spree could exceed $5 trillion in terms of the deficit. But aside from the economic disaster of this tax-and-spending spree, the White House and congressional Democrats want to force banks to report details of every American's bank account to the IRS. This is nothing less than mass, indiscriminate government surveillance of Americans, giving IRS bureaucrats unfettered access to Americans' personal private finances, which is a gross invasion of privacy and an abuse of power. Democrats said that this reporting requirement will only target the rich. But, according to the New York Times, the Biden administration's original plan was to have banks ``provide data for accounts with total annual deposits or withdrawals worth more than $600.'' That is $600 over the course of a year. I don't know if I can think of anyone other than maybe the 8-year-old child whose parents opens an account for them to have an account. No one else who has an account will have less than $600 in transactions over the course of a year. This would lead to almost every American's financial banking information being transferred to the IRS, and this is what the Biden administration is advocating for. If you are a small business owner, it will be as if you are spied upon. If you are a family looking to buy your first home, you will be as if spied upon. If you sell your neighbors some fishing rods, hey, the IRS is going to know about it. If you are a single working mom trying to take care of your children paying for daycare, they will know about it. But now some are saying we will raise the cutoff to $10,000. But that doesn't mean that they will limit their espionage, if you will, to transactions over $10,000. No, this will say that anyone with more than $10,000 transactions on an annual basis, cumulatively, out of a single bank account, that will have to be reported. And there is the rub. It changes almost nothing. Most Americans still fall within this category and will be caught within the surveillance scheme. If you pay rent, you will be spied upon. If you buy a new car to drive your child safely to and from school, the IRS will know it. This is wrong. On top of a clear violation to our right to privacy, it is also just terrible policy. The reporting requirements in the $3.5 trillion Democratic only, no Republicans, tax-and-spend spree will create an unreasonable burden on banks and credit unions to report and record massive amounts of debt. Lastly, let's think about why this bill--reconciliation, Democrat- only play--why it wants keys to your bank account. They need it to help spend for the $3.5 trillion tax-and-spending spree--3.5 trillion, with a ``t'', dollars. They say they are only going to catch ultrawealthy tax cheats. That will be a good thing, but that is not what this legislation does. This legislation doesn't look at the ultrawealthy. It looks at all of us. Now, no one wants people to cheat on their taxes. The people who are cheating should be caught. Republicans have always supported people paying the taxes they owe. What we oppose is a bill with not a single substantive committee hearing in the Senate, which will be pushed through on a strictly party-line vote, in which the American people's concerns about this level of surveillance of their bank accounts goes without comment and in which the bill directs the IRS to know details of almost every single American's bank account. That is what we object to. Democrats are showing us the harm government can do when they don't care about citizens' privacy. They are showing their real priority. It is having an ability to look into our lives on a scale previously unimaginable. It is unacceptable, un-American, and should be opposed. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Isabel Rubio, from my office, be granted floor privileges until October 22, 2021.

Mr. CASSIDY

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

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, today is Thursday, October 7, 2021, and Risk Rating 2.0 has officially been in effect for 6 full days. What is Risk Rating 2.0? It is a new rating system for the National Flood Insurance Program that will increase premiums higher than sustainable for homeowners and, therefore, higher than is sustainable for the program. In Louisiana, 80 percent of policyholders will see increases in the first year, and at times, for some, premiums will become unaffordable and can collapse the value of their home. The Presiding Officer is also from a coastal State. This will absolutely affect everyone who lives in a coastal State. Now, particularly, in my State, in light of recent storms, it is important that we understand the sustainability of the National Flood Insurance Program is key. Congress never passed a bill requiring that FEMA implement Risk Rating 2.0. President Biden can stop it. He has chosen not to. We have asked that FEMA delay implementing this program or reconsider it altogether. Now, by the way, FEMA has been slow to share information with policyholders and, frankly, misleading Congress by hiding the true consequences of 2.0 and not being up front with the cost in the out- years. They said they would tell policyholders by August 1 of the increase in premiums, but they missed the deadline. It didn't come down to homeowners and insurers until the middle of September. Some are still trying to figure out what this rating system will mean for their life. In 2019, my office reached out to the administration, and we were able to successfully delay the implementation saying that there needed to be further consideration. This time, however, the Biden administration has chosen not to delay it. Now, let's just take a quote from a working family in Lake Charles, LA, who does not--I repeat--does not live in a flood zone. They currently pay $572 for flood insurance on a single-family home that is worth approximately $250,000. The quote he received--this is real life. This isn't theoretical. The quote that he received under Risk Rating 2.0 raises his premium to over $5,000--$572 to $5,000. Now, rate increases are capped at 18 percent annually, so it doesn't happen next year. But this is 18 percent compounded. It is kind of like a balloon on one of those little helium things. It starts off and it doesn't seem that it is inflating, and then, all of a sudden, it inflates rapidly, like a balloon note on a mortgage. So with progressive increases, when it gets to $5,000--actually, $5,624--he will have to choose: Do I continue my policy? Now, he is not in a flood zone. If you think about actuarially, you want people who are not at high risk to spread the cost for everybody else. Under this, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 20 percent of policyholders will drop their insurance. That has a risk of putting the National Flood Insurance Program into an actuarial death spiral where those at lower risk drop the insurance, the remaining risk is forced upon a relatively small number of people raising their risk even more, and you gradually have a continual falloff of the number of people in the program. Now, some policyholders are required to pay for the insurance by law, but this puts them in an even worse situation. They will either have to put thousands of dollars up for their insurance or risk losing their home. I would ask President Biden, who unquestionably is an empathetic man and empathetic to the working families of our country, to consider delaying Risk Rating 2.0. Now, there are a couple of criticisms of the flood insurance program, in general, which are unfounded. First: These are millionaires' vacation homes; why do we even have a program? This is factually not true. When CBO looked at samples of home values in the program, it ranged from $220- to $400,000. And I imagine the President from New Jersey--President of the Senate from New Jersey--can think of a middle-income family, a police officer and a teacher; who now live in a home worth $400,000. These are not millionaires or billionaires. In my home State of Louisiana, these are middle-income and working families, folks trying to make ends meet. They are not folks in a vacation home. And here is an example of homes, after recent Hurricane Ida, that would need flood insurance: middle-income homes. By the way, you can see these homes are built a little bit on a berm. They have actually taken the effort to protect their homes from flooding. So the home itself is not flooded, just everything else around it. On the other hand, I can promise you that there are older neighborhoods in which the water is above the doorstep. Now, looking specifically at Risk Rating 2.0, data shows who will see the rate hikes. It is bad news for Louisiana, where rates will increase for almost everybody. The second criticism of the program is that it subsidizes people who suffer repetitive flood damage. Now, this argument is mitigated, if you will, by offering mitigation. Data shows that mitigation is good for the taxpayer. According to the National Institute of Building Sciences, for every $1 spent in Federal mitigation grants, it saves the program an average of $6. In the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, there is $3.5 billion in flood mitigation assistance grants--grants going towards buying up properties that have experienced repetitive loss. Shoring up the program by removing high-risk properties protects other properties. It is true in your State, and it is true in my State. It is a wise investment to protect the National Flood Insurance Program. So we can have a conversation, by the way, about a criticism that if mitigation opportunities are offered to homeowners and they decline them, what to do about that. On the other hand, when folks are offered mitigation, they almost always accept the opportunity for that. Finally, some argue that private insurers will replace the National Flood Insurance Program. But let's be honest, that will not occur. I support the expansion of private insurance covering flood properties. Consumers should have options. If nothing else, this highlights the need for a long-term fix to the program. In the past, I proposed reforms to ensure that NFIP is affordable and accessible to homeowners, accountable to taxpayers, and sustainable. I worked on flood insurance programs with Senators Menendez and Gillibrand, both of them coming from States affected by flooding, just as mine did as well. This makes it bipartisan, two different regions. It is not only about the Gulf Coast; it is about the Atlantic Coast, the Pacific Coast; and it is about our island properties. By the way, I have been speaking about Louisiana, but Risk Rating 2.0 applies nationwide. It impacts all those living on our coasts. Once more, we should all--all of us representing States with coastlines--ask the Biden administration to halt Risk Rating 2.0. This Congress, I will continue to work to reform NFIP. In addition to affordability, accessibility, accountability, and sustainability, there needs to be an emphasis on supporting prevention and mitigation efforts to prevent future floods. At the end of the day, flood insurance must be affordable for the homeowner, accessible, accountable to the taxpayer, and sustainable for the future. Tribute to Pastor A.R. Harris, Sr. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to honor a man in my State of Louisiana, who has dedicated nearly 80 percent of his life to preaching the gospel and serving others through his faith. Pastor A.R. Harris, Sr., was born December 16, 1932, in Jonesboro, LA. He has preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ since he was 7 years old and led God's people for over six decades. Pastor Harris is a veteran who served our country in the United States Army during the Korean war. He and his wife Eva of 63 years have six wonderful children, four of whom followed their father's footsteps to preach the Good Word to spread the Gospel. He and Eva are being honored for their 46 years of service at their church, Zion Hill Missionary Baptist Church #2. He is a man of God, family, and country; and it is my privilege to stand here on the floor of the U.S. Senate and recognize the faithful service of Pastor A.R. Harris, Sr. God bless him, his family, and God bless the United States of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, the difference between medicine and politics--because I am a doctor--is that in medicine, you are forced to look at reality as reality is, whereas in politics we can make up reality. It is: Oh, my gosh, I want it to be this way; so let's assume that it is. I think it is a time for, at least--one, I think it is always better to look at reality, but, particularly right now, let's talk about it as regards inflation. Inflation is really hurting middle-income families. We are seeing higher prices in the grocery store, electricity bills, at the gasoline pump eating up their budgets. President Biden has repeatedly said he would not raise taxes on those making less than $400,000 a year, but rising inflation as a result of his harmful economic and energy agenda is effectively a tax. This is predictable. Democrats and left-of-center economists like Larry Summers warned about the risk of inflation and predicted a sharp rise in prices. He sounded the alarm at the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan. He said that could overheat the economy. It did. This summer, used car prices were up 45 percent, gasoline 45 percent, whole milk 7.5 percent. American families are paying higher prices for goods and services that are essential, and it continues to go higher. The U.S. Department of Labor reported that consumer prices in June increased 5.4 percent relative to a year ago--the largest increase since August 2008, more than double the target rate of 2 percent the Federal Reserve establishes. Now, President Biden and his administration, his Treasury Department, have reassured that this inflation is transitory or temporary. Just last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Federal Reserve sees inflation ``lasting quite a while,'' given their recent and upcoming actions--so, if you will, belying the reassurances of the administration. Looking particularly at energy, it is not surprising that electricity and gasoline prices are soaring, and the average price of gas has now gone over $3 a gallon since May. The national average is $3.19, $1 more per gallon than a year ago--now, again, predictable. One of the first things President Biden did when he took office was to cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline, killing 11,000 jobs that went with it--by the way, not jobs for bureaucrats in Washington, DC, doing quite well during the pandemic because they continue to get paid, but jobs for construction workers who, if they don't have this job, don't have another job and have less ability to take care of their family and to better provide for their child's future. He stopped domestic oil and gas leases and only does that which the court tells him he has to do. Oddly, since he did all of this in the name of addressing issues of carbon emission, the administration then removed sanctions so that Russia can complete the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, going from Russia to Germany, and now is asking OPEC, which includes Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, to increase oil production so we can import their oil--so much for the energy independence our country, researchers, and companies worked so hard to develop. And now we see with every draft of the Democrats' reckless tax-and- spend bill that the Democratic Party seems intent on driving prices higher, increasing our energy dependence on other countries, and hurting our domestic workforce. And I think, if we are going to go back to reality, the American people would ask not to describe these actions as being done for the good of the environment or the climate. I totally believe we must address climate, but the stark truth is that President Biden's energy policies prioritize shutting down domestic production and domestic jobs in favor of using dirtier Russian gas. Why do I say dirtier? There is a National Lab that recently reported of natural gas produced in Louisiana and exported to Europe compared to gas coming to Europe from Russia, that over the 20-year horizon the carbon intensity is 43 percent less for gas that comes from the United States to Europe than from Russian gas coming to Europe, and 10 percent less over 100 years. If you really cared about lowering greenhouse gas emissions, creating jobs for the American worker, and strengthening our economy and our national security, you would encourage the production of U.S. natural gas and ship it around the world, displacing that which was coming from countries such as Russia. It seems as if the administration is more interested in virtue- signaling than truly pursuing a low-carbon solution, and I would love for someone to explain why the administration is so hell-bent on shutting down energy production in the United States, with the good- paying jobs and the economic opportunity, especially in Louisiana but not only in Louisiana. And it is done in a cleaner, more environmentally friendly way than in almost every other part of the Nation. It is as if they would rather the United States be dependent on foreign sources, those that are often not allies, than to produce energy cleanly, creating American jobs in the United States of America. The United States is a global leader in decreasing greenhouse gas emissions entirely, almost, because of the increased production of U.S. natural gas. As production increased and prices fell, natural gas replaced coal, so that now, off the top of my head, I think I know that, in absolute amounts, greenhouse gas emissions in the United States are less now than they were in 2004. And if not, they are almost there. Our economy is a lot bigger, and we have a lot more people, and yet we have managed to hold greenhouse gas emissions at a declining rate because we produced natural gas. We need to encourage exploration and production in our country. We should not be shutting it down, and we should not be shutting down the good jobs that go with it. The administration's backward and disastrous energy policy is playing out before our eyes. It is not good--destroying American jobs, contributing to inflation, and strengthening the geopolitical position of our geopolitical rivals. The administration's actions are directly leading to higher gas and utility prices. There is a way out of the inflation, but it is not empty virtue- signaling. It is not putting American workers out of jobs. It is to restart American energy production, hold lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico, and get American energy in our country back on track, recreating the jobs that have been destroyed, and, by the way, increasing a greater ability to export to other countries around the world, helping to lower global greenhouse gas emissions. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I rise supporting my colleague's proposal. This proposal provides disaster supplemental assistance relief for Southwest and Southeast Louisiana; it extends the National Flood Insurance Program; it funds the government; and it restores funding for Israel's Iron Dome. We are 3 days away from a government shutdown for one reason: Democrats control Washington. A clean vote on disaster relief and a continuing resolution to fund the government--legislation filed by Senators McConnell and Shelby-- passes today with overwhelming bipartisan support. We know that. But my Democratic colleagues are holding this critical funding set not just to fund the government but funding set to benefit victims of disasters in my State and elsewhere hostage to fund their planned tax-and-spend extravaganza. Disaster victims need disaster relief. It is 1 month since Hurricane Ida, 6 months from unprecedented ice storms, 12 months since Hurricanes Laura and Delta wreaked havoc on Southwest Louisiana. Disaster assistance is long overdue. This bill gets it done. And while we are recovering from 2-years' worth of storms, we can't allow the National Flood Insurance Program to expire. Many policyholders, especially in Louisiana, are still recovering from hurricane damage. Government shouldn't pull the rug of insurance from beneath them. It is critical the program is extended so homeowners are covered if there is another storm. This proposal extends NFIP. It also provides disaster relief. The proposal is good for Louisiana. It is good for the country. I urge my colleagues to support this proposal. With that, I yield.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I rise, as I have before, to explain the urgent need to pass a supplemental disaster assistance bill. But this time it is not just for Hurricane Laura, which hit southwest Louisiana over a year ago; it now includes Hurricane Ida, the fifth- most powerful storm to hit the United States, which hit Southeast Louisiana last month. And here, for example, is some of the flooding that was related to Hurricane Ida. I should point out, by the way, that this is not considered a flood event. Well, if it is not considered a flood event, that looks like pretty bad flooding. This is considered a wind event; and so even when it is not considered a flood event, you see almost this entire community flooded. So I guess my statement, Madam President, is: We can't afford--we should not allow the impact of an entire year's--now almost 2 years'-- worth of natural disasters go unaddressed for fellow Americans. I mentioned it is over a year since Hurricane Laura wreaked havoc on Lake Charles. We are only a couple weeks shy of the 1-year anniversary of Hurricane Delta, a category 2 storm that followed on almost the exact same track to hit Southwest Louisiana. Those who were trying to recover were once again subjected to tremendous rains with flooding, and then Hurricane Ida. But before I go to Ida, let me also point out there were also unprecedented winter storms which unleashed catastrophic damage to livestock, crops, and buildings for Louisiana farmers. The same storms that got more publicity in Texas hit us as well, and then Ida and Tropical Storm Nicholas. In light of these storms, I must speak about the National Flood Insurance Program, or NFIP, which is set to roll out Risk Rating 2.0 on October 1, while many policyholders are still recovering from hurricane damage. FEMA said Risk Rating 2.0--FEMA said policyholders were supposed to be able to get the information of what their new premiums would be by August 1. FEMA missed that deadline. They only recently made the information available, less than 1 month of advanced notice. But despite the lack of transparency, we know Risk Rating 2.0 will increase costs. In Louisiana, 80 percent of policyholders will see increases in the first year. For some, premiums may become unaffordable and could collapse the value of their home. Now, these aren't rich people. The criticism of the program is that some rich person with a home on the beach gets subsidized flood insurance. That is not true. These are middle-income families and working families, whom the President, by the way, pledged not to increase the cost on those earning less than 400,000 a year. These folks don't make $400,000 a year; they make far less. They have a hard time paying their gasoline bill or their food bill, with the inflation we have had recently, and now they are about to be socked with Risk Rating 2.0. By the way, Congress never passed a bill requiring that FEMA implement this. President Biden can stop it. He alone is responsible. He should ask FEMA to delay implementation of Risk Rating 2.0 or reconsider altogether. At the end of the day, flood insurance must be affordable for the homeowner, accessible for the homeowner, accountable to the taxpayer, and sustainable. I proposed with Senator Menendez--and before Senator Menendez, Senator Gillibrand--reforms to accomplish that. We can achieve that, but Risk Rating 2.0 is not the way to do so. It is time for Congress to conduct thorough oversight. And, of course, I represent the people of Louisiana, but I could speak of any place in the Nation which has flooded. Speaking for the people of Louisiana, but for all those fellow Americans who flooded, when you flood, you have been pounded; and my job is to help my fellow Americans, no matter where she or he lives, to get back on their feet. And right now I speak to the people of Louisiana: It is my commitment to you to attempt to do so. And we are strong. We are resilient. I drove through south Louisiana. There were people cleaning up their house by taking water-logged beds out, but they gave a thumbs-up when you went by. They are resilient. We are resilient people. On the other hand, when you see on a map of power outage and we are 4 weeks out and there are still people who don't have power back, and this is the United States of America? They don't have homes--they don't have electricity to their home. They can't run their refrigerator. Their home is probably destroyed. It is a tough situation. So I ask my colleagues to pass a clean, separate disaster assistance bill. The formal request from the White House includes 2.3 billion for the Community Development Block Disaster Recovery Program; 275 million for the Emergency Watershed Protection Program, 9 billion for the Wildlife and Hurricane Indemnity Program, 100 million for reclamation projects to address western drought, and 2.6 billion for the Federal Highway Emergency Relief. This request includes initial, though informal, estimates of what may also be needed from damage inflicted by Hurricane Ida. Specifically, they expect the cost and needs stemming from Ida to likely exceed an additional $10 billion in the form of CDBG Disaster Relief, Federal Highway Emergency Relief, Federal Transit Emergency Relief, Small Business Administration disaster loans, and the Disaster Relief Fund, among other programs. And, of course, this is not just to benefit our fellow Americans in Louisiana but also those in the Northeast. More people died in the Northeast related to Hurricane Ida than died in Louisiana. So this is not just for my State; it is for our country--different regions, different neighborhoods, but all fellow Americans. So I ask that we pass this bill for the people of Lake Charles, pass this bill for the people of Terrebonne and Lafourche Parishes in Southeast Louisiana, pass the bill for the people impacted by Ida in the Northeast, and pass the bill for the people impacted by wildfires in the West. It is really simple. Let's not let politics hold up a supplemental disaster relief bill. Or put differently, let's don't leverage the pain of our fellow Americans in a political game. Pass the disaster relief bill. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, the Democratic Party's reckless $3.5 trillion tax-and-spend reconciliation--their spending spree--will be a disaster for the American family. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget warns that this spree could increase the deficit not by $3.5 trillion but by $5 trillion--a little bit of a bait and switch. Oh, it is only 3.5--only 3.5. It turns out the independent Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says, no, more like 5.5. Now, today, my colleagues have shed light on the many costs of this economic--I don't know what to call it--potential catastrophe. Here are just a few in speaking from the perspective of my State. If our goal is to get back to the prepandemic economy, which, by the way, was the best economy of my lifetime--an economy in which there was record-low unemployment, which is to say record-high employment for women, African Americans, Hispanics, the disabled, high school dropouts; record-high employment for veterans, you name it--then this is not the way to go. By the way, the wage growth in this prepandemic economy was disproportionately for those in the lower quintile of our Nation's economy. So those who were lower waged to begin with were seeing the greater growth in their wages under the previous economy. Why does this matter a lot for my State? Louisiana is a hub of innovation for energy and other technologies. Innovation creates jobs, raises wages, and puts food on the tables of working families in my State. Congress should encourage that. These are not the Ph.D.s in solar energy; these are the people who produce the oil and gas or use that oil and gas to make the plastics that matter so much to a modern economy. By the way, you can't help but notice the hike in the price of gasoline that has just occurred, and now they are using the term ``energy poverty'' because there is a hike in the price of electricity. This is hitting the families as a hidden tax. But this bill squashes that innovation, and it is the new taxes and the increased taxes as to how the spending spree is financed. As once said, ``The power to tax is the power to destroy,'' but these taxes are destroying the jobs and wage increases that have been so important to these working families over the last 4 years. The rhetoric, of course, is that this is about a few tax hikes on the wealthiest of Americans, but what we have learned from the Joint Committee on Taxation is that two-thirds of these tax increases will fall upon lower and middle-income families. As one example, again, House Democrats propose hiking the corporate tax rate to an uncompetitive 26.5 percent. The wealthy will still be wealthy. Studies show that when you raise corporate tax rates, it translates into lower wages for the employees and lower dividends and stock escalation for the shareholders. OK. So that is the employee, the operator in the refinery who shows up to make sure that it runs safely, who goes home and helps pay the rent or pay off his mortgage, and it hurts the retiree, who is hoping that her stock portfolio will allow her to live a better life when she retires. It is billed as a hike to the corporations, those greedy corporations, but that hike is felt by the workers and the retirees. So when a family begins to figure out how to pay their higher electricity bill, how to pay their increased cost of gasoline with the inflation that has been eating up their budget--they have to pay more for food, and their children are going back to school, we hope, so they are buying those supplies--they will not get the wage increase they had previously hoped for. This hurts the entrepreneur who is trying to start a small business, and by starting that small business, he employs other people. Rolling back the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, raising taxes on working families, will not help them. President Biden has proposed nearly doubling the capital gains tax, raising it to 39.5 percent. Again, who does that hurt? It hurts, again, the retirees who have been saving for their entire lives so that they can have good lives when they retire. The Democrats are really earning the title of the ``tax-and-spend party'' with this monstrosity. These taxes will stunt our economy, and the needless trillions in spending will skyrocket already increasing inflation, further impacting working American families. Mark my words: This will be President Biden's economic Afghanistan. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Veronica S. Rossman to be a United States Circuit judge for the Tenth Circuit.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, just a few weeks ago, Southeast Louisiana was pummeled by Hurricane Ida on the 16th anniversary, to the day, of Hurricane Katrina's landfall. Ida knocked out power across the State, including the entire city of New Orleans and its populated suburb of Jefferson Parish. The storm brought intense flooding that took lives and devastated communities. I have some posters to place here. This is of St. John Parish in LaPlace, LA, and this of Galliano. You can see both the flooding and the damaged housing. Hurricane Ida struck Louisiana's shores as a category 4 storm, with winds as high as 150 miles per hour, making it the fifth most powerful storm to ever hit the United States. Ida hit just 2 days after the 1- year anniversary of Hurricane Laura, which at the time, on August 27, 2020, was the strongest storm to hit Louisiana in 164 years. Laura devastated Southwest Louisiana. So Ida hit the southeast, and Laura, last year, hit the southwest. Unfortunately for my State, we are no strangers to extreme weather as 2020 set a record nationally for the most named storms in a single season, with 30, 5 of which hit my State. Last year, Louisiana's farmers also had catastrophic damage to livestock, crops, structures, and other things during unprecedented winter storms. In the aftermath of Ida, 29 Louisianans and 85 Americans total died. Yesterday was the first day the number of folks in Louisiana who were without power was below six figures. Those in Lafourche Parish, lower Jefferson Parish, and lower Terrebonne Parish are estimated to have power restored on September 29. That is still 2 weeks from today and a month after Ida made landfall on August 29. I will put up pictures now of Jefferson Parish and of Lafourche Parish. Again, you see flooding and damage, with power lines knocked down and lines hanging from the sky, it seems, but you can see the kind of devastation it did to electrical grids. Again, here is the damage widespread in Lafourche Parish. By the numbers, FEMA has received over 594,000 applications for individual assistance, of which 285,000 have been approved by the Blue Roof Program. We call it that because, when the shingles are blown off your roof and sometimes the boards or the tin, tarps are placed over to keep the rain from coming through. So it is a measure, if you will, of how many people had significant roof damage, but this is an underestimate. The Blue Roof has almost 50,000 validated requests, and the National Flood Insurance Program has 10,579 claims. The Small Business Administration has 17,083 disaster assistance loan applications, and temporary sheltering assistance to almost 10,000 households with almost 29,000 individuals. So, as Louisiana begins to recover, we need two things. First, we need supplemental disaster assistance. By the way, this goes back to the 2020 storms--Hurricanes Laura, Delta, and Zeta. Just last week, the White House's budget office sent a formal request to Congress, acknowledging the unmet needs for these communities over a year later. Now, recall I spoke to the blue tarps and how your shingles blow off or the tin blows off or the boards blow off, and you put on a blue tarp. If you fly over Lake Charles now, a year after those storms, you will still see blue tarps, which is to say homes vulnerable to a rain event like Hurricane Nicholas, in which rain continues to come through, damaging the inside of the house and making the home unlivable. Not surprisingly, many folks are not back in their homes. It is time to pass the disaster assistance bill for Laura, for Delta, for the winter storms, and for Ida. Second, we must also take steps to prevent this level of devastation in the future. Ida gives us a harsh reminder that we need to strengthen the infrastructure that protects us from the worst of these storms, including improving highways and evacuation routes, hardening our electrical grid, and investing in flood mitigation. Now I will put up posters of Larose, LA, and of St. Bernard. Again, this community is without power, and in this community, you can see the destruction done to port facilities. The bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which awaits a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives, is a critical missing piece. It benefits all States, by the way. The Presiding Officer's State has been affected by natural disasters. Resiliency money would really mean a lot in his State. It would mean a heck of a lot in my State. It would mean a lot in every State. But to speak specifically of Louisiana, Louisiana will receive almost $6 billion over the next 5 years for roads and bridges. That is $1.2 billion more than we would ordinarily receive. There is an additional $8.8 billion available nationwide for transportation infrastructure, including evacuation routes and at-risk coastal infrastructure grants. In Louisiana, this money could help complete Interstate 49 in LaFayette, complete the segment in the south, and complete the segment in Shreveport, I-49, to give an unfettered evacuation route should a storm hit either New Orleans or the Bayou region. It also includes six- laneing Interstate 12 through the Florida parishes, as we call them, and a new Mississippi River bridge in Baton Rouge. It should not take hours to go through a 10-mile--literally, hours--to go through a 10- mile stretch in the Capital Region of Louisiana when a storm is on its way, and there is a mandatory evacuation order. Now, by the way, we know resiliency works. We know this investment pays dividends because the damage from Ida could have been worse. But George W. Bush made a commitment 16 years ago to build levees to protect Jefferson Parish, Orleans, St. Bernard, and Plaquemines Parish. So when I went down to St. Bernard afterward--when I went down to Jefferson Parish recently, and I met with elected officials, one of them looked to the ground and said: The ground is dry. We did not flood. And we did not flood because 16 years ago George W. Bush said: We shall build a levee system. We shall build resiliency. Now the onus is upon us to make a commitment to harden the grid, to bury the power lines, which not only protects Louisiana in a hurricane but Texas in an ice storm and the West from forest fires caused by arcs from utility lines to a dried-out forest. In the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, there is $26 billion specifically to strengthen our Nation's electrical grid and to prevent these sorts of widespread power outages and these sorts of natural disasters. This funding includes $5 billion to enhance the resiliency of electrical grids from extreme weather and natural disasters, $12.5 billion to increase power transmission to maintain reliable access to energy, and $9 billion to develop and deploy new technology to strengthen grid reliability and resiliency. Now, some of these pots of money are specifically targeted for States like Louisiana which have been impacted by federally declared natural disasters over the last 10 years. That is the way to build resiliency. So my plea is that we cut politics and actually get something done for the American people. I was meeting with a parish councilwoman, Jennifer Van Vrancken, from Jefferson Parish, and she said: When we get to the point where we don't do what is right because of politics, our country will go down. I said that to another group of people shortly after that, rock- ribbed Republicans--some of them wearing their MAGA hats--and I quoted Councilwoman Van Vrancken, and they all said: That is the situation we are in now. So my rock-ribbed Republicans were agreeing with the Republican councilwoman. But speaking more generally, if we don't do what is right because of politics, our country will suffer. We have got to get this bill done and put the politics aside. There is so much good in this bill. There is flood mitigation dollars, coastal restoration dollars, permitting reform to get projects done early and on time, and I can keep going. But recovery is a two- pronged approach. It starts with aid, and it finishes with the bipartisan infrastructure bill, a bill that helps our communities rebuild from past storms and better prepares our communities for future storms. My folks in Louisiana are strong. They are resilient. But we need the long-awaited supplemental disaster aid, and we need to build resiliency for the future. Both is how we prepare not just my State but our Nation. Let's finally get it done. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Elizabeth Kay, an intern in my office, be granted floor privileges today, August 5, 2021.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I would like to rise and speak to the infrastructure bill that is before us and, specifically, about a component of the infrastructure bill. My colleague, earlier, Senator Tuberville from Alabama, said that when he goes home he speaks to people in his State, and he always gets a consistent message. I, too, get that consistent message: better jobs, greater safety for their family, and a better future for our country. And this infrastructure package addresses those concerns. Now, the infrastructure package is about roads and bridges and highways, ports and waterways, increased access to broadband in areas that don't have it now, flood mitigation, coastal restoration. These are things that will contribute to better jobs, more safety, and a better future for our country. But, first, let me dispel some myths. There are some misconceptions out there about this bill. One misconception is that it is somehow the same as the $3.5 trillion bill that people have heard about that Democrats have proposed, increasing taxes to a record basis and increasing our national debt when obviously we are pushing up on the debt limit. This is not that bill. This bill is about roads and bridges and broadband and flood protection. That bill is about everything else. This bill is about improving the quality of life for our families and improving the future for our country. That bill is about a sugar high on an economy which is already in an inflationary mode. These are two different bills. So I am speaking about the one that has 86-percent approval in two straight polls by the American citizens. The other concern is that this will contribute to inflation. Again, that is confusing it with the $3.5 trillion wish list that my Democratic colleagues have. No, the bill that we are proposing, with $550 billion in new spending over 5 years for roads, bridges, and highways, is judged to not be inflationary, to actually improve our economy over time. Lastly, that somehow this infrastructure bill that we propose is somehow Republicans playing along with Democrats in a way that is bad for our country. Let me point out that President Trump proposed a $1.5 trillion infrastructure bill. We put up $550 billion in new spending. He proposed $1.5 trillion. Only 5 percent of his was paid for, whereas ours is paid for. To make the point, this is something that Republicans have proposed in the past, that Democrats have proposed in the past, and this version is something which Democrats and Republicans can support. It is paid for, and it does help the American people. How does it help the American people? It gives them better jobs, increases the safety of their families, and gives a better future for our country. Let me give some ideas about how that can occur. There is $110 billion for roads, bridges, and highways, not just to repair some, to construct some others, but also for the safety of those that are being rebuilt or being built--$110 billion. We speak about jobs and safety and a better future. Clearly, we talked about safety. Think about the jobs that will be created by this construction of these highways. Think about the better future because these roads and bridges will last for decades. Some person who is now a child will drive over a bridge as an adult, and her life will be better because of the highway that this money paid for. There is $10 billion for ports and waterways, those liquid highways that take our goods from our country to around the world and bring those goods from around the world back to our country, along the way creating jobs for hundreds of thousands of Americans. By the way, transporting products by water is the most environmentally sound way to transport goods. This investment in our ports and waterways--again, creating jobs, increasing the safety--also gives us a better future for our economy, a better future for our workers, a better future for our families, and a better future for our country. There is $16 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers for, among other things, to address coastal erosion, which is occurring nationwide. My State has lost more land mass than any other State in the Nation. My State has lost as much land as is in the entire State of Delaware. But other States are losing land, too. I saw a picture recently of the Gold Coast, that very swank area in the city of Chicago on Lake Michigan, and it showed how the coastline had eroded over time, and now, waves from Lake Michigan are lapping up onto the road in front of these very expensive apartment complexes. This is not on the Atlantic, the Pacific, or the Gulf of Mexico; this is on a Great Lake. I saw another picture of the beach off of North Carolina, which in the last 150 years has receded--I think it is 500 feet. So homes that formerly had a distant view of the water now have waves coming up to their lawn. That is happening nationwide--no place more than my State in Louisiana. This bill makes a significant investment in coastal erosion and protecting those people who live on the coastlines. It will create jobs as this is addressed. It will increase the safety of those folks who live in such areas. It gives a better future for our country. There is $65 billion for broadband, prioritizing those places without service and those places with poor service. I think of a place in my own State; for example, Opelousas, LA, a small town on I-49. Think of a parent there who wants her daughter to be able to study Mandarin Chinese. There might be people there who speak Mandarin Chinese, but they are not the people teaching school. If she has broadband internet, she gets the same educational experience as someone who lives in New Orleans or Baton Rouge or Shreveport. We need to give every child in this country the same access to that educational opportunity. I am a doctor. Most people know that. I also think of the expansion of telehealth and telemental health. Right now, our country has a shortage of adolescent psychiatrists. If we have rural broadband or broadband in areas of our cities which are currently poorly served, the adolescent psychiatrist can be in her office in Lafayette, LA, doing a visit, an interview with a child who lives in DeRidder. A place that won't have a pediatric or adolescent psychiatrist has access to real- time visits because of the money that is in this bill. Economic development. I once spoke to somebody who was thinking of setting up a distribution center in North Louisiana in a place ideally situated to get all the towns around, but it did not have broadband internet. With this bill, that economic development project takes root because now that investor has the ability to manage inventory to receive orders and to communicate with drivers, all because rural broadband has been made a reality--creating jobs, increasing safety, giving that community and our country a better future. Let me just mention one more thing in the economic aspect and safety aspect of this. There is money for sewer, water, and for drainage. If I think of the four corners of my State, but I am sure every person could think of the four corners of their State--and I think of Hawaii as being a round State, so I am not sure I even think of those four corners--but if I think of New Orleans, Shreveport, Monroe, and Lake Charles and all points in between, there was a pent-up demand to address water and sewer and drainage. This bill puts the money out there, which can be combined with other appropriations, which can meet the needs for those folks in my community. I also want to emphasize some of the environmental aspects of this bill. We have billions being put forward to Superfund and brownfield sites. Now, Louisiana has 27 priority sites of those nationwide requiring funding for the Superfund or brownfield. We also have 4.75 billion to cap abandoned oil wells. That will improve conditions not only in Louisiana but across the Nation. It also includes the bill I wrote with Senator Coons of Delaware called the SCALE Act. The SCALE Act helps build this carbon dioxide pipeline that will take CO2 from these manufacturing plants that are producing a product that emits CO2, and it would build pipelines to sequester that carbon dioxide beneath the ground or to allow that CO2 to be used in another product line, putting to work pipefitters, decreasing the carbon intensity of our environment, and giving a better future for our planet--jobs, safety, and a better future. I have already mentioned the $16 billion going to the Army Corps of Engineers for coastal restoration and other projects. This bill is an example of what Congress should do. It is focused upon jobs and safety and a better quality of life. This is good for the American worker. It is good for American families. It is good for the United States of America. I yield the floor.