Bill Cassidy

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I have a motion to instruct conferees at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, my motion to instruct conferees to the minibus appropriations bill, H.R. 5895, is a simple 6-month extension of the National Flood Insurance Program, currently set to expire July 31, 2018--in about 2 weeks. The same timeline in this motion was passed by the Senate a few weeks ago by unanimous consent during consideration of the farm bill. The National Flood Insurance Program insures properties in every State, insuring over 5 million homes and businesses and $1.2 trillion in assets. If the NFIP is not extended, people will not be able to renew or purchase new flood insurance policies, and more people would be without flood insurance during peak hurricane season. This is so to the moment because, given the series of emergency supplemental appropriations bills the Senate has passed, an expiration of the NFIP puts the U.S. taxpayer in the very vulnerable position of funding more uninsured losses in emergency supplemental appropriations legislation. I thank Senators Crapo and Brown for their work in providing a path forward to a bipartisan long-term reauthorization of the NFIP, which ideally includes commonsense reforms providing for greater investment in flood mitigation, updated flood mapping technology, greater accountability, and consumer choice. However, these discussions will not conclude in the next 2 weeks, prior to the upcoming NFIP expiration deadline. It is imperative that Congress provide for a 6-month extension of NFIP now, so progress can continue on long-term reauthorization and reform of the NFIP through the Banking Committee. I urge my colleagues to vote to protect the taxpayer, the homeowner, and to support this motion to instruct.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, along with Senator Kennedy, I wish to talk about the Coushatta Tribe. The Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana is descended from a large, powerful sovereign nation of Coushatta-- Koasati--people who lived prosperously and peaceably for thousands of years in what is now the southeastern United States. The principal Coushatta--Koasati--villages were located on islands in the Tennessee River, in what is now south central Tennessee, which is where the Tribe was living when they first encountered the European explorer Hernando DeSoto in 1540. Koasati oral tradition also holds that they were always the most northerly of the Muskogean-speaking peoples. Tribal elders say that their villages were ``abon, fallami-fa'' which literally means ``above, to the north.'' They believe that their tribal name comes from ``Kowi iisa-fa aati-ha,'' which is literally translated as ``the people from [the lands] where the big cats live.'' Some elders believe that the name Coosa given by the Spanish to the affiliated group of villages, what is now called the Coosa chiefdom, was actually pronounced ``Kohosa'' and thus the people were called ``Kohosa Aati,'' literally translated as the people--of Kohosa. Numerous period maps support these oral traditions, identifying these islands as ``Cosauda''--Koasati, Coushatta, or some other spelling of the Tribe's name. These include the Franquelin map of 1684, the 1711 Crisp et. al. map, and the 1720 Moll map. When the Coushatta--Koasati--were moving southward from their villages on the Tennessee River in October 1686, they encountered the Spanish explorer Marcus Delgado. They explained to him that the two major reasons for their move were drought and aggression from the neighboring tribe of ``Chalaques''--Cherokees. The Coushatta--Koasati--initially settled in villages in the Guntersville Basin area of what is now northern Alabama, then moved a little further south to be allied with the political organization that became known as the Creek Confederacy. The present-day town of Coosada, AL is named for the Coushatta who lived in nearby villages. The Coushattas entered into several treaties with the United States, starting with the Treaty of New York in 1790, signed for the Koasati by Alexander McGillivray and Chiefs Hopoy, Muthtee, and Stimafutchkee, and the Creek Treaty of August 9, 1814, which was signed by Nomatlee Emautla--Captain Isaacs--of Cousoudee--Coushatta, Koasati. When the Creek chiefs negotiated their boundary lines with the United States in 1814, they stated that their northernmost boundary should stretch to ``Cosauda Island in the Tennessee River.'' This is a clear indication that the Koasati people considered these lands in what is now Tennessee as their homelands, never renounced them, and that this claim was widely known and accepted by all of the Tribes. The transcribed text from the papers of the War Dept. is as follows: We, the undersigned head men of the Creek nation, convened [on behalf of] General John Coffee, and the Confederated nations to adjust the line designated by the Treaty of Fort Jackson, and all [-] connected treaties [-] etc.--that the lines between the Cherokee nation and that part of the Creek nation added to the United States by the aforesaid Treaty ought, by right, to begin at the junction of the Eastern [-] with the Hightower [Etowah] river and continue from thence to the old Cosauda [Coushatta, Koasati] village on Cosauda Island in the Tennessee river. In 1797, the great Coushatta Chief Red Shoes is said to have had a devastating vision of the coming Creek Wars, causing him to encourage about half of the Coushatta people to begin migrating westward. Numerous additional groups followed over the next 30 years. By the time of the Creek removals, the Coushatta--Koasati--people had split into three major groups: the present-day Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, and Alabama-Quassarte Tribal town in Oklahoma. As a result of Red Shoes' leadership, the Coushatta--Koasati-- relocated to Spanish territories in Louisiana and Texas. By careful diplomacy, they were able to remain culturally, linguistically, and politically autonomous. In an 1805 report to Congress, Agent John Sibley, appointed in 1804 as an Indian Agent for the Territory of Orleans, reported that he had told Red Shoes and ``Pia Mingo''--Grass Chief-- ``the two Conchetta Chiefs,'' that ``their great Father the President considered all the Red people as his Children, and he would not suffer any wrong to be done them without giving them just & legal satisfaction.'' After living in villages along the Trinity River during the Civil War and Texas fight for statehood, the Coushattas returned to Louisiana to live in villages near the present-day town of Indian Village, near Kinder, LA. Existing laws allowed the tribe to get homestead lands along Bayou Blue, three miles north of Elton, LA. On February 9, 1898, the United States issued an Indian trust patent for 160 acres to Sissy Robinson Alabama, a Coushatta woman. The land patent explicitly provides that the Robinson patent was granted under the Indian Homestead Act. In 1933, the trust was divided under bureau supervision and the two parcels were held in trust for the heirs of Sissy Robinson Alabama until June 11, 1953, when fee patents were issued to the heirs. Thus, the Federal Government exercised jurisdiction over Coushatta trust lands from 1898 through 1953. In addition, according to a report to the Division of Investigations, dated March 14, 1941, 38 homesteads were granted by the General Land Office to members of the ``Koasati Tribe living in the vicinity of Elton, Louisiana'' between 1862-1941. The report concludes that, of the 38 homesteads, only two were granted in accordance ``with applicable law,'' i.e., under the Indian Homestead Act. The two correctly issued patents were, apparently, the Robinson patent, issued under the Indian Homestead Act, and another patent issued under the same act for the benefit of another member of the Coushatta Tribe. On September 2, 1919, an attorney from Alexandria, LA, wrote to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs on behalf of the Coushatta Tribe, asking for ``allotted Indian lands.'' The letter reached U.S. Representative James B. Aswell of Louisiana's Eighth District, who in 1920 asked Mr. Cato Sells, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, to provide him with the information sought by the Tribe. On December 20, 1919, Frank E. Brandon, Special Supervisor of the United States Indian Service, issued a report to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs describing the Indian groups in Louisiana. The report describes the Coushatta Tribe's land predicament as follows: There is approximately 1050 acres of land owned by the Indians divided among various families in tracts ranging from ten to two hundred acres which was acquired by them under the homestead laws. Originally they were induced to make such entries by timber companies who later purchased the timber from the Indians leaving the Indians a title to cut-over land of little value for agricultural purposes on account of it being low and flat with a clay soil which is best adapted to the production of rice. The report goes on to recommend that the Federal Government purchase 40 acres of land for a farm station, erect a cottage on the land, and provide a farmer to direct the Tribe's farming efforts. While Brandon's recommendations do not appear to have been implemented, the fact that he made them demonstrates the Federal Government's ongoing relationship with the Tribe. Over the years, the U.S. Government further engaged with the Coushattas through agents, kept track of the Tribe's status, and provided the Tribe with limited financial assistance including funds for food, supplies, education, a physician, and farming. The government also conducted a census of the Tribe and explicitly acknowledged that the Tribe was under the jurisdiction of Federal Indian agencies. In this way, the government recognized and exercised its government-to- government relationship with the Coushatta Tribe for almost 200 years. In 1954, Congress considered legislation that would terminate the government's recognition of the Coushatta Tribe, but this legislation was not passed, and the Tribe's recognition continued. However, for reasons unknown, the Tribe was not included in the well-known Haas Report of 1947 and was subsequently not included on the Federal Government's list of federally recognized tribes. From 1954 to 1971, the Coushatta Tribe was therefore unofficially ``terminated'' through a series of clerical errors and technicalities. Despite no longer being unrecognized by the government and losing assistance, the Coushatta people survived through their hard work and determination. However, in 1971, Ernest Stevens, Acting Commissioner at the BIA, wrote a detailed letter confirming Coushatta's longstanding relationship with the Federal Government. The Stevens letter confirmed that the Coushatta Tribe was a historical tribe that had never had its rights to Federal services terminated. ``In the absence of such legislation, and in consideration of the possibility of a treaty relationship, we think that the Louisiana Coushattas are eligible for some special federal services to Indian people,'' Stevens wrote. On June 27, 1973, the U.S. Department of the Interior officially rerecognized their historical relationship with the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, and in 1975, the Secretary of the interior took land into trust for the Tribe's benefit. In 1985, the Federal District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Lake Charles Division, confirmed that the Coushatta's lands were ``reservation lands'' and that the State of Louisiana had no criminal jurisdiction over activities on such lands. Through the continued efforts of Tribal leaders and community members, the Coushatta Tribe has steadily grown stronger in the 45 years since receiving rerecognition. From its initial reservation base of 15 acres, the Tribe now owns more than 6,000 acres in trust and fee- simple lands. The Coushatta Tribe now operates more than 20 departments to provide services to members, including a health department and clinic, an education department, and social services department. The Tribe owns and operates Coushatta Casino Resort, the largest land-based casino in the State of Louisiana, and employs more than 3,000 people, making it one of the largest employers in the State. Throughout its proud history, the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana has played an important role in communities across the South. The Tribe looks forward to its continued growth and positive impact for many generations to come.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I am here to speak about honoring Steve Gleason with the Congressional Gold Medal. Steve is well known in Louisiana and throughout the gulf coast and to football fans across the country. He is a Washington State native, as Senator Murray recently spoke, but he lives in New Orleans with his wife Michel and son Rivers. Steve played in the NFL for 8 seasons, mostly with the New Orleans Saints. He is famous as a New Orleans Saint. On September 25, 2006, on ``Monday Night Football,'' the first game back in the Superdome when it reopened after Hurricane Katrina, the Saints were playing their archrival and division opponent, the hated Atlanta Falcons. The Presiding Officer probably likes the Falcons. The Falcons were punting from deep in their own territory. Steve broke through the line and blocked the punt. Fellow Saint Curtis Deloatch recovered the ball for a touchdown. The stadium erupted. There were 70,000 fans in the Superdome stadium. I was watching on TV. Al Michaels was blown away. It was an incredible moment, not just for the football team but because it was the first game in the Superdome, having just been reopened after Hurricane Katrina, which had almost destroyed the city and, indeed, the whole gulf coast, and it had much more meaning. The emotion was for the play but also for what the play symbolized for the game. Steve Gleason's blocked punt symbolized, as Steve would say, ``no white flags.'' New Orleans and the gulf coast were back, and despite Katrina's devastation, we would not surrender. Now Steve demonstrates that ``no white flags'' resolve in another arena. In 2011, Steve was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also called Lou Gehrig's disease. He cannot speak and, except for moving his eyes and blinking, he cannot move. But Steve can still think, and because he can think and because of what he has done with his thoughts is why he inspires and why we wish to honor him with a Congressional Gold Medal. He has a difficult challenge, but his accomplishments addressing that challenge are what is noteworthy. After his diagnosis, Steve and his wife began a mission to show that patients with diseases such as ALS cannot only live, but they can thrive. Steve declared that there would be ``no white flags,'' and that became the mantra of something he began: the Gleason Initiative Foundation. This foundation helps to provide individuals who have neuromuscular disease or other injuries with cutting-edge technology, equipment, and services. It raises global awareness about ALS to find solutions and an end to the disease. It has also helped hundreds of people with ALS experience life adventures they never thought possible. Steve's story and mission have been chronicled by national and local media outlets as well as a 2016 documentary, ``Gleason,'' which shows what his life has been like since 2011. When first meeting Steve, you would expect to feel pity. Yet, as you walk in and meet him and see what he has done, as he speaks to you through the machines he has helped to develop, you feel inspired. His perseverance and commitment to giving hope to others is amazing. I will give a partial list of what he and his wife have done since his diagnosis. He founded the Gleason Initiative Foundation, of which I just spoke. Steve, in partnership with Microsoft,--and I have a poster here showing Steve and the Microsoft team--developed eye-tracking technology that allows him to communicate and to move. So as Steve looks up--again, he can only move his eyes and blink his eyes--he can look at this keyboard and if it says, ``Turn my wheelchair to the right,'' he looks there and blinks his eyes and his wheelchair will turn to the right. He has prerecorded statements. So if you walk in, he will blink at a prerecorded statement that says: ``Hello. My name is Steve Gleason. How are you?'' If he wishes to say something spontaneously, he can blink, blink, blink, and it will say: ``Well, let's discuss this further.'' It is not all just ``let's talk business.'' He has his iTunes on there. He can blink and get his favorite song. There is a multiplicity of functions that allow the man to live--and not just him, because among other accomplishments Steve Gleason and his wife Michel have achieved, he led efforts to enact legislation, the Steve Gleason Enduring Voices Act, to make these devices available to those suffering from neurodegenerative diseases. It was a bill that I was privileged to introduce and that has passed into law. Steve continues to challenge the heads of industry and medicine to improve the technology and the science to find a cure for ALS. He opened the Team Gleason House for Innovative Living, where up to 18 people can live as productively and as independently as possible. A few years ago, Steve hosted a global summit, bringing together researchers, patients, caregivers, and others in the ALS community. The summit resulted in the single largest coordinated and collaborative ALS research project in the world, called Answer ALS. It has nearly 2 dozen research institutions, 1,000 patients, and 20 trillion data points that will help to find unknown pathways to lead to new treatments or to cures. In recognition of Steve's work, in April I introduced legislation with Senators Murray, Kennedy, and Cantwell to honor Steve Gleason with the Congressional Gold Medal. Steve's story is so compelling that in less than 2 months, over 70 of our colleagues joined to affirm Steve's inspiring story and impact upon his fellow Americans to make him worthy of the highest honor Congress can bestow. Steve should be awarded this medal. He is an example of what makes our country great. He has given hope to many. He gives hope to all those who have ever received a devastating diagnosis, and his message is simple: Your life still has meaning. Your best years can still be ahead of you. Steve is a role model, not just for those in the disability community but for all Americans. I suspect that what he may appreciate most about this honor is the attention it brings to find solutions and cures for those with diseases such as ALS. I would like to thank my colleagues, their staff, and everyone else who has helped build support for this legislation including Microsoft, the ALS Association, the NFL, and the New Orleans Saints. I wish to encourage my colleagues in the House to cosponsor this legislation and to pass it as soon as possible. I would like to thank Steve for continuing to be an example of commitment, perseverance, and inspiration. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 2652 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. CASSIDY. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

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

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Andrew Hampton, an intern in Senator Sullivan's office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the day.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise to address two separate topics. Let me begin with National Seersucker Day. Senator Wicker started and I spoke a little bit earlier about celebrating National Seersucker Day. It is a bipartisan tradition to celebrate an American tradition that started in New Orleans. Anyone who has been in New Orleans in July and August can understand why you would like a lightweight summer suit. I was asked today by a reporter: Why would you continue the seersucker tradition? I was thinking, wait a second. Why wouldn't you wear a lightweight suit on a summer's day as opposed to a wool suit? It just makes such sense. But sometimes such sense is in short supply here in Washington, DC. On the other hand, it is something in which both parties, folks from all regions of our country, participate. It started in New Orleans when Joseph Haspel developed seersucker. It is a lightweight suit. It is, if you will, a lighthearted tradition, but it is one that celebrates an aspect of our country and how something in one part of our country can be adopted by folks elsewhere to the benefit of all. Once again, I say happy Seersucker Day to everyone, and if you wish to join my office in wearing seersucker every day throughout the summer, you can similarly be comfortable on a hot summer's day here in Washington, DC. Healthcare Mr. President, let me now address something that is on the topmost of Americans' minds, and that is the high cost of healthcare. It is important for our country, for our States, and it is important for families sitting around their kitchen tables. We have to lower healthcare costs. We have to do something about the high price of medicine. Just some examples of the importance of this issue: Medicare actuaries just this week issued a report that the Medicare trust fund-- that trust fund which pays the benefits for the senior citizen on Medicare going to see her physician, going to the hospital. It pays the hospital. That trust fund will effectively be exhausted in 8 years. In 8 years, the Medicare trust fund we have all been paying into will be exhausted. In part, that is related to the high cost of medicine, the high cost of drugs. We must do something about that. It is not just those on Medicare; it is also those in the individual market. In Louisiana, if you are 60 years old with a family and you are not getting a subsidy through ObamaCare and you want to go into the individual market, your policy, plus deductible and copay, can be up to $50,000 a year, after-tax dollars. Think about this: You are making $150,000, but your after-tax expense for your insurance, deductible, copay, pharmaceutical costs, et cetera, is about $50,000 before your insurance kicks in. The Washington Post thought I was exaggerating. They went down and interviewed somebody in Louisiana. They said: He is right--it really would cost you about $50,000. The high cost of healthcare and the high cost of drugs impact the Medicare trust fund. It impacts individuals. It also impacts States. If you look at State budget after State budget that is struggling to make ends meet, inevitably a major expense, which has grown over time, is Medicaid. States do all sorts of machinations in order to decrease their State's cost of maintaining their Medicaid Program, but despite all those little tricks they do--which, by the way, cost the Federal taxpayers more--still, Medicaid gobbles up more and more of a State's budget. Consequently, one of the reasons college tuition has risen so much--and along with it, the amount of money college students have to borrow to get through even State universities--is that the amount of State general fund dollars going for State university support has declined as Medicaid expenditures have risen. So whether it is Medicare, Medicaid, or the individual family, rising healthcare costs are significant. One more thing I should say about families. From 2007 to 2014, the amount middle-income families have had to spend on healthcare has risen by 25 percent even though the amount they have had to spend on other things has fallen. So we have to decrease the cost of drugs and the cost of healthcare. We did have a bill earlier this year that had been negotiated between Senator Alexander, Senator Murray, Senator Collins, and Senator Nelson--two Democrats, two Republicans--that would have lowered premiums for those in the individual market and done many other things. For example, there was a Federal reinsurance program that could have lowered premiums by as much as 40 percent, I am told, in terms of this year. If you are getting sticker shock--in a few months or right now-- as regards what your next insurance premiums are going to be, this would have lowered that increase dramatically. For those getting short- term, limited-duration policies, it would have put guardrails on those policies to make sure they were good policies. It would have helped young people get back into an insurance market they had been priced out of. It would have given States flexibility on how to implement various programs--again, with the goal to lower insurance costs. It was a bipartisan bill. By the way, whenever I hear one of my Democratic colleagues stand up and say ``We have to do something about healthcare,'' I then ask ``Why did you object and oppose a bipartisan bill you helped negotiate that would have lowered premiums?'' You can see it. It is not me saying it; it is actually the Democratic Party that stood up and said, on the procedural motion to proceed--can we move to a vote on this bill?--that got up and said: No. No, we do not want this bill that will lower premiums for the American people. What I am saying is not opinion; it can be found on YouTube, on C- SPAN. It was a bipartisan bill which they helped negotiate and which they subsequently objected to, preferring that the American people pay higher premiums, I suppose, so that they would have a campaign issue to talk about. So whenever one of my Democratic colleagues gets up and talks about the high cost of healthcare, it begs the question: Why did you oppose the bipartisan bill that would have lowered premiums this year? It is a question the American people should be asking. On the other hand--I am personally working on this--we just put out an 8-page white paper on what we as a nation can do to lower healthcare costs and to decrease the cost of medications. There are several things in there. One is to adopt the bipartisan legislation which we thought we had agreement on but which was subsequently opposed by those who had negotiated the bipartisan agreement on the Democratic side. Second is price transparency. Can you imagine this: If you go and get an x ray that your doctor orders or you go to buy medicine, you would actually know the price of that medicine or the price of that x ray before you go in, and if the price is too high, you would be able to comparatively shop and go someplace where it is less expensive. We do it for jeans. We do it for cell phones. We do it for cars. We should be able to do it for healthcare. By the way, you probably know I am a gastroenterologist, a physician. I spent 30 years in the healthcare system. This can happen, and it does happen. I am told by a GI friend of mine that in North Carolina, Blue Cross of North Carolina will publish the cost of a colonoscopy. He is a lower cost, higher quality provider, and he gets folks coming from as far as 50 miles away for their colonoscopy, to his facility, because folks look online and see that it is a lower cost and that the quality is great. It can work. One more thing on how this works. We ask that you ban gag clauses. Right now, some pharmacy benefit managers will tell a pharmacist that she or he cannot tell the patient that it is cheaper to pay cash for their prescription than to pay their insurance copay. The pharmacist could tell them, but the pharmacist is not allowed to because if the pharmacist tells them they would save money by paying cash instead of going through their insurance, the pharmacist would lose that contract with that pharmacy benefit manager. That is wrong. The patient should have the power. If the patient has the power, we lower drug costs, and we lower healthcare costs. We have many other ideas in this paper, and we invite people to go to the website Cassidy.senate.gov to see this. We would like feedback. We hope that eventually it will be bipartisan. In the meantime, we will continue to work, as will my Republican colleagues, on how we can lower costs on medicine, lower the cost of drugs, and make it easier for those families sitting around the kitchen tables to meet their bills. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASSIDY

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

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, the nomination before us is for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, specifically for Judge Kurt Engelhardt, and I rise today to voice my strong support. Judge Engelhardt is a Louisiana native, earning both his bachelor's degree and law degree from Louisiana State University. I should note that Judge Engelhardt was a member of the Golden Band from Tigerland as a law student, one of the great college marching bands. He may have missed all of that marching because he took up marathon running a few years ago and has now completed 13 full marathons, including the Boston Marathon and the New York City Marathon. All of this is to say that the man has a personal life that is active and vigorous, but he also has a legal life. After law school, Judge Engelhardt clerked for Judge Charles Grisbaum of the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. He then practiced law at Little & Metzger in Metairie before becoming an associate and then partner at Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale in Metairie. In 2001, President George W. Bush nominated Judge Engelhardt for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The Senate confirmed him by a voice vote in December 2001, demonstrating that this body gave him bipartisan support as the quality candidate he was. He has been the chief judge of the Eastern District of Louisiana since 2015. Judge Engelhardt has been an active member of the New Orleans Chapter of the Federal Bar Association, serving on the board of directors for 10 years and as chapter president in 2011. He has active memberships in the Federal District Judges Association, the Louisiana State Bar Association, the New Orleans Bar Association, the Jefferson Bar Association, and the Fifth Circuit District Judges Association. In 2004, Judge Engelhardt was appointed by the Supreme Court to serve on the Judicial Conference Committee on Federal-State Jurisdiction for two terms, and he has also served on the Louisiana Supreme Court's Judiciary Commission. Judge Engelhardt was also very active in serving the New Orleans community, having served on the board of directors of the Cancer Association of Greater New Orleans for more than 20 years. Judge Engelhardt was confirmed out of the Judiciary Committee on February 8, 2018, on a bipartisan basis. The committee recognizes that confirming good, qualified judges who uphold the Constitution is one of the Senate's top priorities. Judge Engelhardt is the kind of fair-minded and experienced person we need to serve on the bench. He has served the people of Louisiana well as an article III judge for the past 17 years, and I have no doubt he will continue to serve with the same high standards on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. I support the nomination of Judge Kurt Engelhardt and urge all of my colleagues to do so as well. Thank you.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I have a request for one committee to meet during today's session of the Senate. It has the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committee is authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, May 7, 2018, at 5:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on the following nominations: Christopher Krebs, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of Homeland Security for National Protection and Programs, and David Williams, of Illinois, and Robert M. Duncan, of Kentucky, both to be a Governor of the United States Postal Service.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, today I rise in recognition of seersucker manufacturers and enthusiasts across the United States. I wish everyone a Happy National Seersucker Day. This uniquely American fashion has a storied history dating back to 1909. The first seersucker suit was designed by Joseph Haspel at his Broad Street facility in New Orleans, LA. Louisiana is proud to have played an important part in introducing the country to seersucker apparel. This lightweight cotton fabric, known for its signature pucker, has been worn and enjoyed by Americans across the country during the hot summer months. Mr. Haspel said it best: ``Hot is hot, no matter what you do for a living.'' In the 1990s, Seersucker Day was established by Members of this Chamber to honor this unique American fashion. I proudly resumed this tradition in 2014 in the U.S. House of Representatives and continued this tradition in the U.S. Senate. This year, I wish to designate Thursday, June 7, as the fifth annual National Seersucker Day. I encourage everyone to wear seersucker on this day to commemorate this traditionally American clothing. (At the request of Mr. SCHUMER, tie following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the nomination of and the vote we are about to have on Kyle Duncan. Kyle Duncan is from Louisiana. He has been nominated to be on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Let me speak a little bit about his qualifications and why I think we should support his nomination and vote yes. First, I have a little bit of pride in this; he is a graduate of LSU, my alma mater, and graduated from LSU's law school, the Paul M. Hebert Law School. He graduated in the Order of the Coif and subsequently got a master of law degree from Columbia University. He has the training, experience, and institutional knowledge to be a successful judge. I have discussed his academics; let's speak about his experience. His breadth of experience makes him a great choice. He was certified as ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association. He has extensive courtroom experience on the Tenth and Fifth Circuit Courts of Appeals, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Texas and Louisiana Supreme Courts, and he has twice argued in the U.S. Supreme Court. He has experience working in the public and private sectors and in academia. He pulls from diverse legal backgrounds, including criminal law, American Disabilities Act regulations, section 1983 claims, healthcare law, adoptions, and contract law. He understands the Fifth Circuit. After law school, Mr. Duncan clerked on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals under the Honorable John M. Duhe, Jr. He was the assistant solicitor general at the Texas attorney general's office and a professor at the University of Mississippi Law School. He is the appellate chief of the Louisiana Department of Justice. All of these are States included in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Again, this is the experience and background we should look for when selecting a judicial nominee. I will also add that he is of high character. Even those who are going to vote no have been impressed once they have met him. They consider him a genuinely nice man whose body of work is reflective of someone who is decent. His body of work also demonstrates his high respect for legal precedent. He understands that a judge is not an advocate for a particular case but, instead, an adjudicator upholding the law, applying the law to the facts. He is a man of high integrity, high character--something sorely needed in this world but especially to be demonstrable in the Federal judiciary. Clearly, Mr. Duncan is a qualified nominee, having that which it takes to be a successful judge. I recommend Mr. Duncan without reservation, and I urge my colleagues to join in supporting his nomination.

Mr. CASSIDY

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

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I honor today the life and sacrifice of one soldier in particular, U.S. Marine Corps LCpl Taylor Conrad, who was 24 years old and was a Central Louisianan. Our military men and women deserve recognition. They sacrifice time away from family and friends and put themselves in harm's way to advance our country's interests. Every day, they risk their lives to secure our safety. In the case of Taylor Conrad, along with three of his fellow marines, he tragically lost his life last week when their helicopter crashed during a training mission in California. A Louisiana native and Central High School graduate, Taylor exemplified the qualities of a good marine. He was tough, compassionate, and wanted to help others. In high school, Taylor played football and was an accomplished powerlifter. He also volunteered in the Best Buddies program, which matches students with schoolmates in the special ed program. A teacher said: The one thing that made Taylor such a special friend with our kids is he didn't approach them in a way that he felt sorry for them. He approached them in a way where he truly wanted to be their friend. The school's athletic director said Taylor's ``love for those who need the most is something I'll never forget.'' There was one child who would never speak except, with Taylor, he would laugh. That was the effect Taylor had on others. After school, Taylor decided to serve our country by joining the Marines. He went on to become a CH-53 helicopter crew chief in the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing's Heavy Helicopter Squadron 465. One marine who served with Taylor had this to say of him: He was the gold standard. He pushed everybody and he cared about everybody. I wouldn't be the Marine I am now if it wasn't for him. Our hearts go out to everyone whose life was touched by Taylor. We especially pray for his family, including his daughter, who was born just last October. Their loss is great, and their hearts are heavy. I want them to know that Louisiana and our entire country mourn with them because our loss is great too. When they lost a brother, a son, and a dad, we lost a good man, a great marine, and a fellow American. Thank you.

Mr. CASSIDY

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

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I wish to speak about some issues relating to the spending bill and things that happened in Louisiana. Louisiana had two catastrophic floods in 2016 that affected not just our State but also Texas and Mississippi, with over 100,000 disaster victims who became eligible for SBA--Small Business Administration-- disaster assistance loans. Here is one picture. Oh my gosh. Here is the window. The water is as high inside the patio area as outside, and the woman has a face of despair. Here is another picture, which shows a family being evacuated in a boat. Obviously, it is a neighborhood with stop signs and nice trees and streetlights, and they are being evacuated. We can imagine what their family home looked like. Fifty-six of Louisiana's sixty-four parishes had Federal disaster declarations. The August storm alone caused an estimated $10 billion in damage to private property, which, apart from hurricanes, made it the most expensive U.S. disaster in the last 100 years. The most devastating thing was how little time people had to react. The storm was missing key cyclone characteristics, so the National Hurricane Center had no expectation of how devastating the storm would be, and the first parishes hit by the flooding had no time to evacuate or prepare. Many families who were impacted by the great floods of 2016 in Louisiana lived outside what are called special flood hazard zones and were not required to and did not carry flood insurance. Indeed, about 80 percent of flooded homes did not have flood insurance. Last year, I worked with the Louisiana delegation to obtain about $2 billion in community development block grants to help cover portions of those uninsured losses for Louisiana families and small businesses. We also got about $500 million in disaster tax relief to help with the uncompensated disaster losses. But with CDBG--community development block grant--funding, which is distributed through the Restore Louisiana Homeowner Assistance Program, it is arcane--there is something which is an arcane and arbitrary rule called duplication of benefits. The duplication of benefits rule states that if an individual is eligible for and received a loan from the Small Business Administration, that individual is ineligible for a grant from the Restore Louisiana Homeowner Assistance Program. The rule makes no sense. An individual who did the right thing and drew upon all available resources to rebuild their home and begin to put their life back together is denied relief. Language that fixed this issue was included in the disaster supplemental passed by the House last year. The Senate was prepared to consider this in December, but the legislation was delayed--frankly, held hostage--by the minority party using it to gain leverage to get more government spending as part of the budget negotiations we are now in. Now that this disaster supplemental has been rolled into the budget negotiations, we saw that the provision to fix the duplication of benefits issue was added, but it only covered Texas, Florida, and Puerto Rico. So I worked with my fellow Louisiana Senator, Mr. Kennedy, and members of the Appropriations Committee to make sure Louisiana is treated the same as Texas and other States. Now this provision applies to individuals who were eligible to receive an SBA loan but did not take out a loan. What does this mean? According to the SBA, 100,000 homeowners were eligible to apply for an SBA loan from the March and August 2016 floods; 38,000 applications were received, and 18,000 were approved. As I am told, if you are eligible but don't take out the loan, you don't qualify for the Restore Louisiana grant. Again, I am told that if you are eligible but did not take the loan from the SBA, then you are not eligible then to receive the Restore Louisiana grant because of the duplication of benefits rule. There are roughly 82,000 homeowners who could potentially be eligible to receive relief from repealing or altering this duplication of benefits rule. Now, there is some confusion in my State. I want to be clear. This does apply to the $2 billion CDBG grants the Louisiana delegation secured to help families recover from the 2016 floods in Louisiana. Senator Kennedy and I also helped secure additional Army Corps resources to fully fund the Comite River Diversion, a diversion that takes floodwaters from the Comite River into the Mississippi and would have helped prevent many homes from being flooded--probably the homes these folks are being evacuated from--in the great flood of 2016. We also secured $12 billion in mitigation grants specifically for Louisiana and about five other States, which is much more targeted for disaster States than the House bill. Again, the Senate bill is the same number of dollars but for fewer States, therefore, more targeted than in the House bill. So the disaster relief portion of this legislation has taken some steps in the right direction. However, we still need additional clarification around duplication of benefits issues and legacy FEMA appeals matters. I thank my Senate colleague from Louisiana for his work on this and hope to receive further commitments from the Appropriations Committee to continue to work on these important disaster recovery issues. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, as we vote this evening on the Pain- Capable Child Protection Act, I speak to the bill as a doctor who practiced in a hospital for the uninsured for decades. I mention working in a hospital for the uninsured because the uninsured are vulnerable, but if the uninsured are vulnerable, among those, the uninsured pregnant woman is particularly vulnerable. If we are to say she is particularly vulnerable, then we can say her unborn child is most vulnerable of all. So I speak to these folks with that background. Our country has struggled to find a balance between those of us who are pro-life and those who are pro-choice. As a pro-life doctor, I think the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act strikes a balance. Again, as a physician, let me say it is an obligation--our society's obligation--to care for the woman who is pregnant. Again, she is among the most vulnerable. Her child is the future of our society. We all agree to this. You can see we agree because our social programs provide a safety net both for her and her unborn child. Example: Society pays for well-baby visits through Medicaid or through special programs for women if they are uninsured. If that child is born healthy, then he or she is more likely to be a healthy person, to contribute to society, to have life, liberty, and be able to pursue happiness. Those of us who are pro-life and pro-choice can differ when the child within the womb deserves protection as a distinct human, but society has agreed at some point that protection is allowed. Again, I am pro- life. I think the protection should be when the child is conceived, but right now the law is divided. If a pregnant woman and her child were killed by a reckless driver, there are two counts of manslaughter filed against that reckless driver--one way society acknowledges the life within the womb. On one hand, let's be clear, a woman has the right to terminate that pregnancy at another point in the pregnancy. On the other hand, partial-birth abortion says that child's life cannot be terminated when she is coming through the birth canal. I think the rationale for this is that as a child comes through the birth canal, we recognize that child can live independently, if allowed to proceed. If you will, the criteria is: Does the child have the ability to live independently from the mother? Again, I think that is the rationale for the partial-birth abortion ban. As it turns out, a child who is 5 months old within the womb has the ability to live independently. Again, I speak as a physician. When you see a baby in the womb at 5 months, it is incredible. A friend of mine who works for me--actually, he and his wife are expecting now, and they are excited. They went and got the ultrasound, and they saw the child sucking on his thumb or her thumb--they don't know or they don't want to know. Nonetheless, it is marvelous what they see inside--the child. You can see him yawning, stretching. At 18 weeks, you can find out if it is a boy or a girl--and, thanks to modern medicine and the amazing neonatal intensive care doctors and nurses we have in this country, babies delivered as early as 20 to 22 weeks can survive and live healthy lives, perhaps one day to become the Presiding Officer in the Senate of the United States. In recent years, medical research has shown that unborn children can feel pain as early as 20 weeks after they are conceived. As a doctor, I have to look at the scientific evidence we have when it comes to the beginning of life. At 20 weeks, studies have provided strong evidence that babies can feel pain despite the fact that the nerve connections between the different parts of the brain are still developing. That is why fetal anesthesia is routinely administered when unborn children require surgery in the womb. By the way, doctors know this. I just got a letter from the Louisiana Academy of Family Physicians. One of their folks, Dr. Gravois, called me last night. Here is a statement from their letter: Representing more than 1,900 physicians, including active practicing physicians, residents in training and medical student members, as well as the patients in Louisiana, the Louisiana Academy of Family physicians is the voice of family medicine in Louisiana. As advocates for our patients, in August of 2015, the LAFP Congress of Delegates passed the following resolution on Late Term Abortions: Resolved, that the LAFP is against performing elective abortions 20 weeks and after, and further be it Resolved . . . . It goes on, but that is the take-home point. Family physicians take care of both the mother and her child, the totality of it. By the way, I will say this bill includes explicit--explicit-- exceptions when a mother's life is at risk or in cases of rape and incest, again, attempting to strike society's balance between those of us who are pro-life and those who are pro-choice. Versions of this law have already been passed in 20 States, including my State of Louisiana, but all babies who feel pain deserve the same protection. Most Americans agree, even some who believe abortion should be legal. Polls show that majorities of women, Independents, and Democrats support this protection. So I hope my colleagues will join in supporting this commonsense, humane legislation. It is estimated this bill will protect 12,000 to 18,000 babies per year. Protecting unborn babies who can feel pain is the right thing to do. Protecting their right to life is the right thing to do. I urge my colleagues to vote for this important legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, Republicans just passed the largest tax reform package in 30-something years, and middle America will go home in February with bigger paychecks than they did--I say in February because it will not take that long for the IRS to update their software. They will go home with more money in their pockets. If there has been a theme in the Trump administration, it is that they want those working Americans, those middle-class Americans, to do better under this President than they did in the previous 8 years. That tax reform package is part of that, and I am amazed that my Democratic colleagues objected to it. They objected to middle-class Americans having more money in their pockets, in their take-home pay, for no other reason, I think, than to resist President Trump.

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 wish to discuss the historic rehabilitation tax credit. During the Finance Committee markup of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the committee adopted my amendment to return the historic rehabilitation tax credit to the 20 percent level, with the credit now claimed over 5 years, as well as a transition rule to grandfather approved and underway projects under the prior law and regulations. The historic rehabilitation tax credit program provides jobs and investment in communities across the country. More than 40 percent of projects over the past 15 years have been located in communities with populations less than 25,000 people. Since 2002, the historic rehabilitation tax credit has facilitated 782 projects in Louisiana, bringing more than $2.2 billion of investment into cities and towns across the State. I am pleased this important provision will be preserved in tax reform. For purposes of the transition rule in my amendment, ``taxpayer'' refers to the person who undertakes the rehabilitation of a building. In the case where a person makes an election under section 48(d), the term ``taxpayer'' means the lessor, since the lessor is the person who undertook the rehabilitation. It is intended that the historic rehabilitation tax credits be available during the transition period only to the extent such credits would have been available under the prior law and regulations. Mr. President, I am proud of the work we have done in the Senate to develop a bill that delivers tax cuts to working families and significantly improves the competitiveness of our Tax Code. This will lead to greater investment, more jobs and opportunity, and an increase in economic growth. I would like to take a moment to highlight an important, unresolved issue that we should consider as we work toward putting a bill on the President's desk. Families in Louisiana are particularly prone to the negative impacts of natural disasters. From Hurricane Katrina in 2005 to historic flooding in multiple parts of the state during 2016, we have unfortunately seen some significant losses in our State; yet as we saw once again with the recent Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, Louisianans are resilient and watchful of neighbors through the tragedy and the recovery. One aspect of recovery that many people don't see is the enormous amount of capital that flows into the storm zone from the reinsurance industry. In simple terms, reinsurance is insurance for insurance companies, and it helps Louisianans rebuild their homes, their businesses, and their lives. Reinsurance transfers risk from the balance sheets of property and casualty insurance carriers so those companies can provide cost- effective solutions to consumers and businesses. A robust reinsurance market helps ensure that policyholders are getting the best rates possible on insurance for their homes and businesses. Many of the largest reinsurers in the world were founded in Europe 100 years ago or more, and a number of them do business in the United States through U.S. subsidiaries. My concern is the potential impact of the bill's base erosion provision on the reinsurance market and policyholders along the gulf coast. The base erosion provision has the rightful intent of targeting bad actors who implement strategies to avoid U.S. taxes; yet the provision may have an unintended consequence of negatively impacting cross-border reinsurers conducting normal transactions, which could affect the market and premiums. Reinsurance is critical to families and businesses in Louisiana, particularly after a natural disaster, and I hope to work with my Senate and House colleagues on this matter as we work to get the bill to the President's desk.