Bill Cassidy

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I wish to honor the memory and service of Dalton Vernon Martin, chief petty officer, U.S. Navy, Retired, and sherriff's deputy, East Baton Rouge Sherriff's Department, who passed away 4 years ago, on January 23, 2011. Mr. Martin devoted his life and career to the service of others which was evident in his combined 61 years of military and civil service to our great Nation and the Baton Rouge community. Born in St. Francisville, LA, Mr. Martin first excelled as a high school boxer, compiling a record of 63 victories in 65 bouts. He dedicated that resolve and fighting spirit towards serving and defending his country, enlisting in the U.S. Navy to fight in World War II and the Korean war, including the Pacific battles of the Gilbert and Marshall Islands, Tarawa, and Okinawa. Mr. Martin served onboard the USS Charleston, USS Taswell, and the USS Indianapolis. After a distinguished 38-year career in the Armed Forces, Mr. Martin retired from active duty and embarked on a new mission of service as a deputy of the East Baton Rouge Sherriff's Office. Here, Mr. Martin spent 23 years protecting his fellow citizens and upholding the rule of law. Mr. Martin lived a life of service, but he never sought to label himself as the hero he truly was. He spoke honestly and openly about the fear and sadness that are inseparable from the glory and honor of serving in combat. He was grateful for the opportunities afforded by his service to visit the farthest reaches of the world, but he served for no other reason than to defend his country and one day return home to his beloved Louisiana. If the measure of a person is by what they leave behind, then Mr. Martin sets a standard to which we should all aspire. His life's story is yet another testament to the strength and legacy of the ``greatest generation.'' And for his wife Christy, his children Paul, John, and Susan, and his grandchildren Erin, Tristan, Madeleine, Jack, Lauren, and Caroline, his spirit and legacy live on. The country he helped to preserve as the greatest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world remains forever grateful.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. I thank the Senator from Kansas. (The remarks of Mr. Roberts pertaining to the introduction of S. 168 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, this is my first speech to the Senate. It is interesting because as a child I would read about how the Senate was a great deliberative body. I would read of the debates in which issues were discussed that changed the course of our country's history. The key issue here is that it is a deliberative body. I was in the Senate energy committee the other day and one of the opponents of this Keystone bill said we need to be guided by science. I like that thought. We are not to be guided by our prejudice. We are not to be guided by what we want to be the case. We are to be guided by the facts, because just as when I was a kid and I would read about how this great deliberative body would decide issues that would then decide our country's future, this Keystone bill decides the future for many issues. With that said, let me also say that I just came over from the House of Representatives and one of the nice things I had the privilege to do was to enter a Keystone bill quite similar to this one, which passed. In the course of that being introduced, debated, passed, et cetera, I heard the arguments of those who were opposed to the Keystone bill, and I have been able to think about them. I am pleased to say I think there actually is common ground. If the American people want the Senate to work together to come up with solutions on a bipartisan basis, and if we are to be guided by science and the facts and not by our prejudice, and if what we deliberate will help determine the future of our country and the many families in our country, I am pleased to say that we have common ground. The opposition is concerned about climate change, increased carbon emissions, the amount of oil that might be spilled, whether this encourages the use of fossil fuels, and are the jobs being created worth being created? We can address these factually, not by prejudice but by using, actually, President Obama's own State Department information. With that kind of source--it is President Obama's State Department providing the answer to these questions. So let's go through them. First, the President's own State Department says that building the pipeline will decrease carbon emissions, there will be less oil spilled. By the way, it will not only create jobs, but it will also save workers' lives. We are deliberating a bill here which, according to President Obama's State Department, will save lives. That is truly changing the future of somebody. In detail, on page 34 of President Obama's State Department report, it says that the pipeline would have no significant environmental impact. It will actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 28 to 42 percent relative to not building the pipeline at all. President Obama's own State Department also acknowledges that these oil sands are going to be developed whether we build the pipeline or not. If they are not piped to the gulf coast of Louisiana and Texas to be processed, they will be sent to overseas markets such as China, creating Chinese jobs instead of American jobs. I think it is also safe to say--we read about how in China people can't see the blue sky. Their environmental standards are far more lax than ours. If it goes to the gulf coast, I can tell my colleagues I just came from Louisiana yesterday and I saw blue skies. With all of our environmental standards, this will be processed in such a way which is most environmentally friendly. If it goes to China, there will be pollutants put out in the air which the jet stream will blow over the United States. If we are to be guided by science and not by prejudice, the science would say we should build the pipeline to allow the oil sands to be processed in the United States. I heard one person say that he would be for the pipeline if he was sure the oil would not be exported. I don't quite know how to respond to that because if we don't build the pipeline it will absolutely be exported. It will be exported to China, and then quite likely we will buy the refined products that the Chinese then produce. On the other hand, again referencing President Obama's State Department, they have said that if we pipe that oil to the gulf coast, our gulf coast refineries are uniquely equipped to process that oil in an environmentally safe way, and so it is unlikely that it will be exported. I will add to that, according to the World Trade Organization guidelines, if we accept an import from another country, we cannot not export it should there be higher value. But I return to what President Obama's State Department said, which is that the gulf coast refineries' unique ability to refine this in an environmentally sensitive way means that despite World Trade Organization restrictions, it is unlikely that it will be exported. There are other benefits as well. It is clear that it will diversify our energy security. Instead of buying our oil from the Middle East or from countries like Venezuela who don't care for us--in fact, use the money we pay them in some cases to finance terrorism--it will come from a trusted neighbor who will spend that money that we pay Canada for this commodity back into the North American economy creating jobs indirectly in the United States that otherwise would not be, which leads us to the question, are these jobs worth having? In a word, the answer is absolutely. Now, we all know that creating better jobs for American families is what should be the Congress's priority. For 6 years we have been talking about building the Keystone XL Pipeline and we have, if you will, postponed the creation of these jobs. Let's just look at it. Refineries in my State of Louisiana and along the gulf coast would benefit because it would be roughly 100,000 barrels a day of crude oil transported to us. In Louisiana up to 12 percent of that oil would end up in our refineries, more than $1 billion in revenue to our economy. It would create over 40,000 construction jobs over a 1-to-2 year period. Some will oppose this and say these jobs only last for a week or two. I was outside the energy committee hearing room and there were a couple of fellows from trade unions who stopped me. They said, We need these jobs. I said, what about the argument of the other side that the jobs will only last 2 weeks? Those are the nature of our jobs. If you bring a master welder in, he or she will do their job for 2 weeks and then move on to another. But for our union members to get their union benefits, they have to work a certain number of hours per quarter or per month--I forget the unit of time--but this will allow them to meet that minimum requirement in order to continue to receive their union benefits. I can tell you the crafts unions think that these jobs are worth having. These are well-paying jobs with good benefits. They are not the service sector in which hours might have been reduced from 40 to 30 hours a week. These are great jobs and great benefits. The American people want Washington to work together. As I mentioned earlier, I introduced and passed Keystone legislation in the House of Representatives. Keystone has become a symbol for North American energy independence. Approving this pipeline is not the final step in this independence but it is the next step. It is a good step. The case for approving this pipeline and other energy infrastructure projects is clear. I encourage my colleagues to join in approving the Keystone XL Pipeline and putting this debate to rest because I truly believe we have common ground, if we are to be guided by the science and the facts and not by prejudice. We know from President Obama's State Department that it reduces carbon emission, it will decrease the amount of oil spilled, it has minimal effect upon the environment, it will save the lives of the workers while strengthening our national security and enhancing our energy independence and creating 40,000 American jobs. That is why more than 60 percent of Americans support this bill. It is a jobs bill, a national security bill, and it is a bill which should be passed. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield back my time.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, it has been over 6 years since backers of the Keystone XL pipeline first submitted an application to the U.S. State Department, on September 19, 2008, to build this energy infrastructure project and bring jobs and greater energy security to America. Now, building the Keystone XL pipeline would create more than 40,000 average annual jobs over a 1- to 2-year construction period, putting $2 billion into workers' and their families' pockets and giving a much- needed boost to the American construction sector. In addition, tens of thousands of jobs would be supported throughout the supply chain, jobs for manufacturers that make the steel pipe, the thousands of fittings, valves, pumps, control, and safety devices required for a major pipeline. In addition to my home State of Louisiana, manufacturers in Georgia, West Virginia, and throughout the country would benefit from the construction of this infrastructure project. Now, economists have found that the pipeline would create 20,000 manufacturing jobs, an additional 118,000 spinoff jobs, including jobs within the U.S. refinery and petrochemical facilities. This would employ and improve the jobs for Americans who right now are struggling. Refiners in Louisiana and along the gulf coast would benefit from a reliable supply of heavy crude transported through the Keystone XL pipeline. These petrochemical plants employing the families that right now are having the hardest time in this economy, this gives them those better jobs. The final State Department review found the pipeline would create over 40,000 jobs without significant environmental impact. Now, note, Canada's oil sands are going to be developed with or without this pipeline. The Canadian Government is already on record stating that oil sands derived from crude oil will be exported to overseas markets like China. It will be shipped on rail and in oil tankers, which may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions versus transportation to the U.S. by pipeline. Now, the case for proving the Keystone XL pipeline is clear and obvious, so why hasn't the President approved it? And, up to this point, why hasn't Senator Reid allowed a vote on approving Keystone? If there was ever legislation that should not be difficult to get through the Senate, it is the Keystone XL pipeline. By the way, Pew Research reports that over 60 percent of Americans support it, as do major labor unions, every State along the pipeline's route, and a majority of the House of Representatives on eight separate occasions voting on similar bills in the affirmative. So here we are on the ninth attempt. It has been 539 days, about a year and a half, since the House first sent a Keystone approval bill to the Senate in this Congress. That legislation could have been considered, amended, passed, or completely replaced; yet the bill has collected dust on Senator Reid's desk. The bill considered today that I introduced is the language asked for by the Senate. So we are going to make it as easy as possible for the Senate to finally get a bill to the President's desk that approves this long overdue Keystone XL pipeline. Thanks to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, the Natural Resources Committee, the Rules Committee, and House leadership for working with me to clear a path for this expedited consideration. Upon passage of this bill in the House, it will go to the Senate for approval, then to the President, where I hope he signs H.R. 5682 into law. I want to thank Chairmen Upton, Whitfield, Shuster, Sessions, and Hastings for their work on this important legislation. I particularly want to thank the American people for sending a signal in this last election that they want us in Washington, D.C., to work together to accomplish commonsense legislation that will create jobs for families which are struggling now, but because of legislation like this, we will have more opportunity and a better future. This is a perfect example of what the American people have asked us to do. I encourage my colleagues to join me in approving the Keystone XL pipeline to finally provide 40,000 promised jobs to the American people.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. These jobs are at risk when President Obama blocked the ability to construct pipeline infrastructure or blocked exploration and production off the Outer Continental Shelf or places hurdles in front of the exportation of liquefied natural gas and when EPA proposes job- killing regulations driving blue-collar jobs to foreign countries. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I urge the Senate to pass the dozens of job-producing bills this House has passed and that have been stalled at the majority leader's desk for months.

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nebraska, Mr. Terry, Chairman Upton, and Chairman Hastings for incorporating important provisions that I have worked on in this bill, specifically provisions that would prevent or roll back onerous EPA regulations and provisions that would greatly increase revenue sharing among gulf States, adding billions to Louisiana's coastal restoration effort to build hurricane protection to protect not just our State but energy infrastructure. Now, we have passed these bills before, sometimes three times before, and there are over 40 jobs bills this Chamber has passed that have gone nowhere in the Senate. The bills sit on Majority Leader Harry Reid's desk. Senator Reid and his colleagues like to speak of helping the middle class, but when it comes to a jobs bill they talk and we act. Now, Louisiana and Louisiana's workers are greatly benefiting from America's energy renaissance. There are over 66 industrial projects-- worth some $90 billion--that will break ground over the next 5 years in Louisiana, creating tens of thousands of new jobs for working Americans. The only thing that can stop these jobs is Federal regulation. For example, some proposed EPA rules would destroy 117,000 jobs in Louisiana alone. Sometimes I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so busy saving the Earth they will sacrifice the American family. My, my, I think we save the Earth by first saving the family. We should be rolling out the red carpet for these jobs, not the red tape. But already the red tape has made these jobs more difficult and life more difficult for these families. We have seen the price of utilities, gasoline, groceries, and, of course, health insurance increased under President Obama's administration. Hardworking families are struggling. They pray for better jobs with better benefits. Fortunately, the energy industry is creating these jobs.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, over 19 percent of returning veterans suffer from some form of traumatic brain injury. That is why in March I introduced H.R. 4276 which would extend a VA pilot program to care for those suffering from traumatic brain injury, or TBI, and was pleased when a portion of this bill was included in the Veterans Access to Care Act of 2014. In addition to extending the program for a longer length of time, my bill also created metrics for determining the success of the program. I am pleased the House will now vote on the amended portion of my bill which creates more thorough, frequent reporting requirements and expands the definition of ``assisted living'' to encompass broader definitions of care. The expanded reporting requirements allow for a more thorough determination of how successful this program is in rehabilitating patients suffering from TBI. I am a doc. I know that, unless you measure something, it will not change. If we measure and find it doing well, hopefully, we expand; if not, we improve it. It will also measure the satisfaction that the veteran and their family members have with the program. By expanding the definition of ``assisted living,'' the bill also allows for more partnerships to take place with non-VA facilities so that veterans can receive the kind of care that serves their unique needs. It is our duty as Members of Congress to care for our veterans and ensure they receive the best care available. I thank Chairman Miller for working with me on this legislation. I appreciate the opportunity to have it considered, and I urge all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, this bill empowers female-owned small businesses and workers to keep the health care policies they prefer and make their own decisions regarding health care. Women make 95 percent of the decisions regarding health insurance and families across the United States. I don't think we have to be patronizing and assume that they cannot make their own decisions. In fact, I am asked continually by women who are 50 years and above why are they having to pay for maternity benefits. They are just flabbergasted by that. This is important economically. The Manhattan Institute reports that the Affordable Care Act, so-called ironically, has increased insurance premiums by 41 percent on average--for women, as much as 62 percent. Imagine that woman sitting at home, lying awake at night, wondering how she is going to pay her bills, being forced to pay for benefits the opposition doesn't think she is smart enough to know that she doesn't need and unable to afford her house. That has happened in an instance I know of. Now, today, the House has the opportunity to help Americans keep the health care plan of their choice, and how we vote comes down to two questions: First, do you think control over someone's health care plan should reside with a Washington politician or bureaucrat? Or do you trust that American woman to make the proper decision for herself, for her family? I will tell you where I stand: I think we should give power to the patient, not to a Washington bureaucrat. Secondly, do we think that politicians should keep the promises made to constituents? Four years ago, supporters of the health care law looked Americans in the eye and said, ``If you like your health care plan, you can keep it, period.'' I tell you where I stand. Representatives in the people's House should honor their word and uphold the commitment to those who sent us here, period. Let's protect the health care choices of America's workers. Let's hold politicians accountable for the promises they made. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit. Vote ``yes'' to protect the health care plans of America's middle class. Vote ``yes'' to keep the promises made. Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is about keeping a promise and doing right by the American people. The Employee Health Care Protection Act is a bipartisan bill that allows American workers, if they choose, to keep their employer-sponsored health care plan that they depend upon for health care security. I am amused my colleagues across the aisle seem to think the American worker doesn't know what is best for herself, her family, or her business. It just amazes me they have so little regard for the average American. They feel like they must tell the average American what is best for them. They cannot make their own decisions. Frankly, I am disappointed that this legislation is even necessary. President Obama and congressional supporters of ObamaCare made unequivocal promises dozens of times that Americans can keep their plan if they wished. Yet, last year, millions of Americans found their health care canceled because it did not comply with ``Washington knows best, you don't'' rules set forth in ObamaCare. Ninety-three thousand Louisianans lost their health care in the individual market, and thousands more in the group market are in danger of losing their plans unless we pass this bill. The President apologized to Americans who lost their coverage, saying that he is ``sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me.'' If the President were truly sorry, he would call Senator Reid and tell him to pass this bill and provide relief from ObamaCare to the millions of Americans who relied on a false promise. He would then work with this body to repeal and replace ObamaCare with market-based solutions that give the power to the patient, not the Washington bureaucrat. I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this bill. The Employer Health Care Protection Act allows American families to save money on health care, increases access to affordable health care choices, and will raise wages for workers. On top of that, it will decrease the deficit by $1.25 billion over the next 10 years. It is a commonsense bill that provides relief to millions of Americans. Mr. Speaker, let's keep the promise to middle class workers and ensure that, if they like their health care plan, they can keep it.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following Proclamation: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Lieutenant Alice Warren of the City of Baker Police Department, located in Louisiana's Sixth Congressional District. It is indeed a great honor and privilege to join Lt. Warren in commemorating and celebrating her sixteen years of dedicated service to the Baker community in the state of Louisiana. Over the past sixteen years, Lt. Warren has worked in several capacities within the Baker Police Department. Lt. Warren began her career with the Department as a Communications Officer and was later promoted to Police Officer in the Uniform Patrol Division. Lt. Warren continued her ascent when she was promoted to Patrolman First Class and then to Sergeant. In September of 2011, Lt. Warren was elevated to the rank of Lieutenant. In this role, Lt. Warren holds the distinction as being the first and only female to hold this position with the Baker Police Department. In addition to Lt. Warren's long record of accomplishment and achievement, she should also be commended for her courage, outstanding service and heroic sacrifice in protecting and defending the residents of the City of Baker on a daily basis. On behalf of the residents of Louisiana's Sixth Congressional District, I congratulate Lieutenant Alice Warren on her many outstanding years of service and her invaluable contribution to the Baker Police Department. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this 22nd day of July, in the year of our Lord two thousand fourteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-eighth.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, I have amendment No. 91 at the desk, a limitation amendment regarding life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions and LNG exportation.

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, the United States is the largest producer of natural gas in the world and has a large and growing natural gas reserves base. The Energy Information Administration estimates that proven and unproven reserves of natural gas are large enough to fuel America for over 90 years at current consumption rates, and more is being found. A study sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and published by IHS concluded that unconventional gas development supported over 900,000 jobs in recent years. The U.S. Department of Energy, however, recently changed the process by which it reviews and approves liquefied natural gas export projects to non-free trade agreement countries. Among its process changes, the DOE is releasing a new environmental report that explores the life-cycle greenhouse gas impact of U.S. LNG exports. According to the DOE, the report will be used to ``inform its decisions'' regarding greenhouse gas emissions of U.S. LNG exports for use in electric power generation in Europe and Asia. With this new report, the DOE is compromising with intervening environmental groups that want the criteria and scope of the ``public interest'' to include life-cycle greenhouse gas emission impacts. While the DOE claims that impacts are not ``reasonably foreseeable'' at this time, by acknowledging special interest environmental group requests for expanded scope of review beyond the LNG facility, the DOE opens the door to prolonged litigation. LNG export projects already go through extensive environmental impact analysis during the project's National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, review. This new report adds another layer of legal risk and uncertainty to an already extensive and difficult process. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports the Cassidy-Fleming amendment and notes that the DOE's sole jurisdiction lies in considering the public interest of exporting the commodity and should not waste funds, potentially delaying license application review in an effort beyond its jurisdiction. The Cassidy-Fleming amendment prohibits the DOE from applying its report or the perceived impact on life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions in its LNG export public interest determination process, so I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague from Louisiana, Dr. Fleming.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about setting priorities. The Army Corps of Engineers construction account has a serious backlog of over $60 billion. According to a recent CRS report, there is a backlog of more than 1,000 authorized studies and construction projects. The President's budget inadequately addresses this backlog, only allocating $1.1 billion for these important infrastructure projects, a 32 percent reduction over fiscal year 2014-enacted levels. Now, I applaud the committee for providing $48 million more for Corps construction over the 2014-enacted levels, but more needs to be done. This is especially prevalent with the recent passage of the bipartisan water resources conference report, which contained authorizations for existing projects, such as the Louisiana Coastal Area, and new projects, such as Morganza to the Gulf. Mr. Chairman, my amendment transfers $5 million out of the Department of Energy's administrative account and moves that money into the Corps of Engineers construction budget. The goal is to move more projects forward, to reduce the backlog, and to open up the door for projects across the country vital to our Nation's waterways, our economy, and our ability to export. Louisiana, for example, contains 3 million acres of coastal wetlands. Louisiana's coast is home to over 2 million people, supporting vital ecosystems, national energy security, thousands of jobs, and a unique culture. As you may know, our coastal wetlands are rapidly disappearing. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that if present land-loss trends continue, Louisiana will lose 2,400 square miles of land between 1932 and 2050. That is an area about 25 times that of Washington, D.C. Morganza to the Gulf, which is one of five new projects authorized in WRRDA's hurricane and storm damage risk reduction subsection, is of immense importance to Louisiana's coastal restoration and protection efforts. The project's purpose is to protect the remaining fragile marsh and wetlands from hurricane storm surge. This is one of many projects around the country that needs funding and is vital to our Nation's infrastructure. Taxpayers wish to see this backlog cleared out and other projects important to our Nation's economy moved forward. That is what this amendment intends to help achieve. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, the President's 2015 budget request cuts O&M funding by 28 percent, reflecting an overall $1 billion cut in the Corps of Engineers' civil works budget from the levels set in the fiscal year 2014 omnibus budget bill. While I appreciate the House Appropriations' mark of $44 million above the fiscal year 2014 level, more must be done to help ensure our waterways are properly maintained. This is especially true with the Water Resources conference report, which allows for 100 percent of the funds generated by the cargo tax to be utilized for harbor maintenance and dredging by the year 2025. We need to help bridge this gap now, as nearly 1,000 Federal ports and harbors have not been adequately maintained, and are dredged to their authorized depths and widths only 35 percent of the time. The amendment myself and my colleague from Louisiana are coauthoring directs $1 million from the Department of Energy's administrative offices and directs $1 million to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' operation and maintenance accounts. The purpose of the funding redirection is to make strategic and justified investments in our Nation's port and waterway infrastructure, such as the Calcasieu Ship Channel. For example, Port of Lake Charles officials announced yesterday that vessel traffic is expected to increase by more than 50 percent over the next 5 years and double within the decade. With more than $67 billion worth of capital investments in southwest Louisiana, the increased channel use is attributed to expanded operations of existing terminals and the construction of several proposed facilities. Mr. Chairman, we need to work to provide the resources to maintain and dredge these vital navigation and shipping channels. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

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

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, this act is important. It is important for Americans. Now, first, just to allay some fears, actually, this does not eliminate the need for Federal permitting for the entire process, but what it does is eliminate the President's ability to sit on a project, not allowing it to go forward, abusing the trust of the American people, that he is actually working in their interest, as opposed to pursuing his own narrow agenda. Now, let's make this very clear: the fact that the President is just reviewing this is beyond credibility, but what it does do--his kind of interminable delays eliminates 20,000 to 40,000 jobs just on the one project, Keystone XL pipeline--which the other side is speaking so much of--and 100,000 indirect jobs. By the way, when we buy products from Canada, 80 percent of the dollars that we spend there stay on the North American continent, improving the economy, not just in Canada, but also in the United States. If we buy oil from overseas--say the Middle East--only about 40 percent of those dollars return. This is beyond the impact of building pipelines themselves, but also a global economy. Now, the State Department--this administration's State Department has said that this project, Keystone XL pipeline, will have negligible impact on the economy. Indeed, if we continue to truck or ship by rail, more people will die--Americans will die, Mr. Chairman--than if we build a pipeline in which they anticipate, of course, there is no deaths. One thing this will do is this will really--the opposition of the President and the other side, it will do wonders for China's economy. Canada has just announced they are going to build a pipeline to their west coast to send these oil sands to China, creating Chinese jobs, but also Chinese pollution that, once it is into the atmosphere, will blow over onto the United States. Talk about a fruitless policy of delay. Now, let me just finish by saying there is one more aspect of this. It helps create North American security. No longer are we buying oil from countries which hate us, financing their efforts to undermine our society; rather, we keep that money with our closest ally who, in turn, buys goods for us. We should approve this bill and this project in particular. We should build it for Americans. It is better for the environment. It is better for our economy. Most of all, it is better for our workers.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam Chair, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam Chair, the point of this amendment is to bring transparency and accountability to the process of awarding TIGER grants. Now, TIGER grants were created in 2009 with money from the stimulus bill to provide competitive grants that were to fund infrastructure projects and supposedly on a merit-based criteria. There has been about $3.6 billion in TIGER grants awarded since 2009 going to States, local governments, and other entities for highway, transit, rail, and port authorities. DOT is currently reviewing grant applications to award $600 million for a sixth round of TIGER grant funding, applications due April 28, 2014. Last month, the GAO reported numerous problems with the awarding of TIGER grants. The findings found in the report that DOT continued to accept specific applications for 30 days after the notice of funding availability deadline and did not notify the public. The DOT policy office did not follow its own guidelines and advanced projects with lower technical ratings instead of more highly-rated projects, providing no documentation or evidence of the factors that led to these decisions. This leads me to why we are offering this amendment, again to bring transparency and accountability to the process of awarding TIGER grants. In 2011, GAO recommended that DOT should develop a strategy to document decisions and work with Congress to disclose how it makes its decisions. The Government Accountability Office further recommended that the DOT limit the influence of geographic considerations and instead have a merit-based process. In their most recent report, the Government Accountability Office again made similar recommendations to provide transparency to the process. Now, my amendment does not do away with TIGER grants. Private sector partners, State and local governments, metropolitan planning organizations, transit agencies in Louisiana and elsewhere have applied for these. This amendment will not prevent them from the opportunity to receive funding, nor do I wish to prevent consideration of the hundreds of applications that have been offered for this current cycle. However, this amendment requires that the Department of Transportation follow the Government Accountability Office recommendations to be transparent and objective in the management and decisionmaking process when selecting applications for funding under the TIGER grant program. We cannot have DOT have a process which is suspected to be political and not merit-based when there are Federal tax dollars at stake and when communities in Louisiana and elsewhere with meritorious projects are having theirs not considered when those with less merit are receiving prioritization. That is wrong. It is not what we should be pushing. Again, I push this amendment to bring transparency and accountability to the awarding of TIGER grants. With that, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following Proclamation: In celebration and appreciation of seersucker manufacturers and admirers around the country, I extend a Happy Seersucker Day. With a rich history dating back to 1909, seersucker clothing is a unique American fashion. The original seersucker suit was designed by Joseph Haspel at his Broad Street facility in New Orleans and has been enjoyed since by many Americans. The lightweight cotton fabric with its signature ``pucker'' has provided comfortable fashion ware during the hot summer months. As Mr. Haspel said, ``hot is hot, no matter what you do for a living'', seersucker clothing is now enjoyed by Americans across the country in all walks of life. In the late 1990s, Seersucker Day was established to honor this unique American fashion. I wish to restart this tradition by designating Wednesday, June 11th as National Seersucker Day. I encourage everyone to wear seersucker to commemorate this iconic American clothing. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this 9th day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand fourteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-eighth.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.