Bill Cassidy

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, as a practicing physician still seeing patients in a safety net hospital, I support repealing ObamaCare. Let's look at Medicaid, a broken program bankrupting States and driving Federal indebtedness and, most importantly, under which patients do poorly. Under ObamaCare, Medicaid is greatly expanded, spending increases $100 billion, straining State and Federal budgets. We need an alternative to ObamaCare's Medicaid bankrupting governments and Medicaid's poor patient outcomes. One reform I propose is the Medicaid Accountability and Care Act, or the MAC Act. The MAC Act controls spending, incentivizes quality care, helps Federal funding to follow the patient. There are other needed reforms. Chief Justice Roberts' opinion said that it is not the duty of the Supreme Court to rescue the American people from bad public policy; that is up to elected officials. Republicans seek to rescue Americans from bad policy. We offer positive policy for States, taxpayers and, most importantly, patients.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 452 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. As that reading suggests, this amendment addresses accountability for the Essential Air Service. Earlier this year, the House and Senate agreed upon an FAA authorization after a fairly contentious debate. Chief among the issues which were resolved was a dispute over the Essential Air Service program, which provides Federal subsidies for airlines which provide flights to rural or otherwise remote airports. While the work done by Chairman Mica and his colleagues adds several important reforms to the EAS program, a number of issues have since surfaced. Tonight, I'm offering an amendment to hopefully resolve one of those. As currently written, the T-HUD bill funds the Essential Air Service program through a $114 million appropriation from the Airway Trust Fund and via what are called overflight fees, which are charged by the FAA to foreign aircraft using American airspace and navigation assets. In 2011, as a result of an annual increase of 17 percent to the overflight fee, the Department of Transportation estimated that the fee would bring in around $69 million in revenue for fiscal year 2013, which, when paired with the annual appropriation from the Airway Trust Fund, would provide all the money needed to operate the EAS program. DOT, however, was wrong about their original $69 million projection. According to the President's budget and report language in this bill, the projected revenues from the overflight fees are actually $100 million. That means that when you combine $114 million appropriated in this bill plus the $100 million in revenues from the overflight fees, the EAS program has $214 million. Now, you could ask, Is this adequate to fund the program? It certainly should be. In fiscal year 2011, before the plan began to start scaling back the program, expenditures were around $195 million. Put differently, as we've scaled back the program, we have actually increased funding by about $19 million. Only in Washington would that be a scale. I shouldn't laugh. But that's not the only source of funding that the bill provides. It also allows the Secretary of Transportation, at his discretion, to provide more funds in case the $214 million in revenue does not cover all obligations. How is this possible? Through the authorizing language tacked onto the end of the EAS section at the bottom of page 7: Provided further: That if the funds under this heading are insufficient to meet the costs of the essential air service program in the current fiscal year, the Secretary shall transfer such sums as may be necessary to carry out the essential air service program from any available amounts appropriated to or directly administered by the Office of the Secretary for such fiscal year. Let me repeat: ``such sums as may be necessary to carry out the essential air service program.'' In other words, this is a blank check for the Secretary to redirect to EAS if they overrun their $214 million allowance. I have introduced this amendment to correct this issue and enforce the fiscal discipline that I think even the strongest proponents of the program hope to see. The amendment preserves the EAS program, but forces it to live within its mean and prioritize spending to where it is most necessary and cost effective. My amendment nullifies the Secretary's authorization language from the bill and allows the FAA to spend only the money appropriated to it through both the Airways Trust Fund and the overflight fees. Some may oppose this and point out that the section in question does not deal with any new spending or funding, only with allowing the Secretary to direct unobligated balances. However, this perpetuates the ``use it or lose it'' mentality in the Federal Government. It should be a principle that agencies ask for and receive only the funds they absolutely need for their programs and that any unnecessary overpaid funds be returned unspent to the taxpayers. Empowering the Secretary to use unspent money on more EAS flights is a step in the wrong direction. Under the bill as written, there will be no impetus for FAA to prioritize funds or substantially cut back on unnecessary flights if too much is spent. Any gaps in funding can simply be filled in by the Secretary at his discretion without congressional approval. I voted last night for the McClintock amendment to phase out the EAS program, but I respect the decision of the House and the Members who voted to keep it in place. The program is going to stay; my amendment doesn't change that. However, just because someone voted not to eliminate the program does not mean they cannot vote to impose reasonable rules and limits. Simply put, spending $214 million for EAS is enough. Please keep it from going any higher and preserve the congressional power of the purse.

Mr. CASSIDY. It may be that in practice it has not resulted in a problem. It certainly is a loophole that evades the congressional power of the purse. Now, if in some way we could look into the future and know it was never going to be an issue, you're right, it would not be an issue. On the other hand, without that kind of prescience, it seems to be the better part of valor to reclaim our power.

Mr. CASSIDY. Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

Mr. CASSIDY. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the National Black Home Educators, which is located in Louisiana's Sixth Congressional District. This week they celebrate their annual banquet marking twelve years of service both locally and nationally. Founded in July 2000, the National Black Home Educators supports families who are actively involved in their children's education. The NBHE is comprised of more than 5,000 families, organizations, and companies which offer services, tools and resources to assist in children's education. The NBHE assists and equips families to best educate children at home while empowering children, with the support of their families, to achieve academic excellence. NBHE acts as a cornerstone in the homeschooling community by facilitating a supportive environment for all black home educators through field trips, meetings, and conferences. Mr. Speaker, I heartily commend the National Black Home Educators in their success and efforts in supporting and facilitating parents who are whole-heartedly invested in their children's education. The National Black Home Educators are an important asset to Louisiana's Sixth Congressional District as well as the rest of the nation. I wish them continued success in their mission to promote and support the homeschooling community.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 264 I inadvertently voted ``yea.'' My intention was to vote ``nay.'' Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 152, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam Speaker, I'm a doctor. And as a doctor who still treats patients, I understand how important it is to have health care for the millions of Americans who depend upon it, particularly Medicare. Therefore, I fully support the repeal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a new government bureaucracy of 15 unelected, unaccountable officials created by the President's health care law. Now, as it turns out, the IPAB can only save money by slashing payments to physicians, to Medicare Advantage plans and prescription drug plans--things that our seniors depend upon daily. I cannot imagine why my Democrat colleagues support making it more difficult for a senior to obtain the care that she needs and deserves. The faith that centralized planning of the IPAB will be successful in controlling costs brings to mind Samuel Johnson's quote regarding second marriages: ``It is the triumph of hope over experience.''

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 78, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. If I may reclaim my time, because of market forces, not only is Medicare Part D incredibly popular among seniors, but its costs are 40 percent cheaper than originally conceived. That is the power of giving the patient the ability to go from plan to plan. If she doesn't like that plan, next year she chooses another, and the bad plan goes out of business if enough seniors do that. That's the same concept behind Medicare Part D. We have other colleagues to speak. I'll add one more thing. I'm always struck when our Democratic friends say they want the American people to have the same type of plan that Members of Congress do. The premium support model is the same type of plan you and I have. We pick among an array of programs. We pick the one that works best for us that matches our pocketbook. If we're poor, we pay nothing at all. If we're rich, we pay a little bit more. But most of us in Congress are in this middle range, we get the plan that most fits our needs. That is the Wyden-Ryan plan totally. We actually give the American people the same sort of deal that Members of Congress get. So that said, thank you for allowing me to join you, Dr. Fleming.

Mr. CASSIDY. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CASSIDY. Thank you, Dr. Fleming. I always tell people hepatologist--no, I don't do snakes. I do liver disease. We have to make that correction. I just want to kind of pick up where Dr. Roe left off. A lot of folks say, heck, how did we end up with Medicare going bankrupt when they've paid into it their whole life? Well, if you work backwards, it began, if you will, or maybe the most recent insult, was the fact that the President's health care plan, the Affordable Care Act, took $500 billion from Medicare. Instead of putting it back into Medicare to support the program, it used it to create their new entitlement. Now, that's important because as the graph you had earlier showed, at our current rate of going forward, by 2030, I think it is, Dr. Fleming, you have it right there, roughly 2040, 2045, Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare will take up the entirety of our Federal budget. Whatever tax dollars we receive by 2045 will be entirely consumed by those three entitlement programs. Do you have that graph where there is the debt on there as well?

Mr. CASSIDY. So by 2030, I think it is, if nothing changes, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and the national debt will consume 100 percent of our tax revenue. Clearly, we have to preserve this important program. The other thing I'd like to point out to people is, in 1964, when Medicare was conceived, people were having, on average, four kids per family. So the folks that came up with Medicare said, Well, people are having four kids per family now, most likely they'll continue to have four kids per family going forward. Let's make this a pay-as-you-go. There will always be four people paying for the two people ahead of them. It turns out families have shrunk. Now I'd point out in most crowds, most people have more brothers and sisters than they do children. Families have decreased in size. Instead of on average four kids per family, now there's about 2.5. That demographic shift has made all of the difference. Instead of a pay-as- you-go program where there is always as much money coming in as we needed to pay out, what has happened is families have shrunk, you have a large number of baby boomers, and then their parents, and beneath it, you have kind of a tree, if you will, where it goes straight down. Instead of the pyramid originally thought that would occur, we now have something that looks like that and then goes straight down. There is no longer this broader base of people paying in. We're not the first to recognize this. John Breaux, the former Democratic Senator from Louisiana, was appointed by President Bill Clinton to say, Listen, the demographics are changing. How do we preserve Medicare? It was actually John Breaux, a Democrat, who first came up with the premium support model. Now, we speak of it sometimes as a Republican plan. No. It was originally a Democratic plan, and it was a bipartisan commission. It came up with this premium support model as a thing that would save Medicare. As it turns out, President Clinton became distracted with the Monica Lewinsky affair, if you will, and it kind of got pushed to the wayside. This same Breaux carry model conceived of in the nineties is the basis for what is now the bipartisan Wyden-Ryan plan. Now, although Dr. Roe spoke of it earlier, it's worth going back over. If you're 55 and above, nothing changes from the Medicare program you've always known. If you're 55 and above, if you're already on Medicare because you're disabled, nothing changes. If you're 54 and below, like I am, the program changes to premium support. Now, in the premium support model, it works kind of like Medicare Part D. I find the program that best fits my need. I choose the program that I want. If I'm very wealthy, I pay a little bit more. If I am poor, I pay nothing at all. But if I'm middle class, I pick the program I like. If it's a frugal program, then I pay less out of pocket. If it's a bells and whistles program, I may pay a little bit more out of pocket--much like the Medicare Part D program that seniors now get their drug benefit from. By the way, a Medicare Part D program that has an 80 percent approval among seniors.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. ``The gulf oil spill has been terrible for the Gulf Coast. But as bad as it has been, the Federal Government's moratorium on deepwater drilling can be worse.'' Mr. Speaker, 18 months ago I had the honor to speak these words while offering a motion to immediately end President Obama's moratorium on deepwater drilling. Although the moratorium has officially ended, there is still a two- thirds cut in new permitting and an overall slowdown in production that has caused nearly one-half of the Gulf Coast's oil and gas-focused businesses to reduce wages or lay off workers. These aren't the major oil and gas companies. These are small businesses that cannot move overseas. Forty-one percent are not turning a profit. Seventy percent have had to draw from their savings accounts to meet operating expenses. The gulf oil spill is a tragedy, but for workers, the moratorium has made it worse. For the sake of job creation, affordable domestic energy, and a stronger economy for all Americans, I call on the President to reverse these policies and let the Gulf Coast get back to work.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 24, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. In the challenge that we have in creating jobs, every now and then we have a lighthearted moment. Congresswoman Sewell, who represents Tuscaloosa, and I made a challenge to each other over the BCS championship game. I'm here to pay off my end of the challenge. First, let me congratulate LSU. They had a tremendous season. They played nine ranked teams. Four of those games were against those that were in the top three in the polls. Coach Les Miles was Coach of the Year. There were four positions on the All-America Team held by LSU Tigers, two on the second team. It was a tremendous season for the fans as well. That said, I also congratulate Alabama. They similarly had a great year. They are to be congratulated. They came back from their earlier defeat where LSU beat them at Bryant-Denny Stadium and stayed focused and got revenge on LSU in the BCS. I would also say to Congresswoman Sewell, she was incredibly gracious in paying off our arrangement then. I enjoyed those Tuscaloosa ribs. I also will thank Congressman Paul Broun, who, when LSU beat Georgia, was similarly gracious. Now I hope to be as gracious as they and pay off my arrangement with Congresswoman Sewell before we return to this serious business of Congress, and that is to say on the floor of the House of Representatives, Roll Tide.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. I actually again agree with my colleague, Mr. Garamendi. There has been a lot of sturm und drang, but there's actually something that we can agree upon here. First, I'll say that President Obama, many congressional Democrats and House Republicans all agree that 12 months would be better than 2 months in terms of the extension of these things. The Senate disagreed. They did it for 2 months. The Constitution says that if the House and the Senate disagree, the two come together, have a conference, a compromise, common ground is found, and then both Houses vote upon it. For some reason, we don't want to go through that process. For some reason, Senator Reid does not want to bring his people back from vacation to vote. Now, I will say that all this other conversation about issues kind of obscures--I think, almost is there to obscure the fact that this is about whether regular order will be followed, whether the constitutional method of resolving differences will be employed. Now, I would say that I ask the Senators to pay attention to what the Constitution says, to do the work of the American people. I know it's inconvenient. I know it's a holiday, but this is too important. Let's not give up on the process.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 941 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to highlight a newer technology called enhanced oil recovery. When an oil well runs dry, half as much oil remains underground, unable to be extracted using traditional means. This is where enhanced oil recovery comes in. EOR, as it's called, pumps CO2 into the ground, and oil which is trapped can be extracted safely and cost effectively. Now, enhanced oil recovery is not hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. It is a process that displaces oil and allows it to be extracted. The Department of Energy states that enhanced oil recovery can yield as much as 80 billion barrels of oil, decreasing our needs to import by as much as one-third. And for those seeking to reduce atmospheric CO2, enhanced oil recovery provides the sequestration of carbon capture and sequestration. As importantly, enhanced oil recovery employs thousands of Americans while generating royalty payments to local, State, and Federal governments. Enhanced oil recovery creates jobs, increases energy security, and potentially benefits our environment, and is a technology to be supported as much as we can.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Unemployment continues to hover over 9 percent. And when we say unemployment as 9 percent, that is a statistic. But we know that it's just not a statistic; it is a family. It is a family which is less able to provide, less able to have stability because of this unemployment rate. Now, as it turns out, the unemployment rate is not generally distributed. It turns out it's principally among blue collar workers. Blue collar workers have traditionally been employed in manufacturing, construction, and mining. And this is one of the reasons why I, and many Republicans and many Democrats, so strongly support the Keystone XL project. Think about it. Because they will extract that oil from the ground, creating jobs there, they are then going to build a pipeline, construction. And to build that pipeline, they have to manufacture steel. We're going to be creating jobs by this one project in the three areas that those who are now unemployed are principally employed in. Now, this is not done with government subsidies. It does not put the taxpayer at risk. Indeed, it will generate more tax, not by increasing rates, but by increasing income, more tax receipts to help lower our Nation's deficit. I could go on about the increase in energy security, about how the oil sands actually have a better carbon footprint than some of the oil we are now importing from Venezuela. But the bottom line is we are in a recession of 9 percent. The President has the ability to create 20,000 jobs directly and 100,000 thereafter. I think because of this and to show the kind of across-the-aisle support for this--this pipeline is supported by the Laborers International Union of North America, the Teamsters, the AFL-CIO, the Pipeline Contractors Association, and other major unions. Mr. President, please create 20,000 jobs directly, 100,000 jobs indirectly, a total package, targeting those people who are most unemployed now without using a government subsidy and, in fact, by increasing government tax receipts and, in so doing, increase our energy security. Please approve the Keystone XL project.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam Speaker, if anyone is concerned about our jobs program, go to gop.gov.jobs. That's all the bills we've introduced so far that we have passed--most of the time you have not participated, but indeed it directly addresses the need for more jobs. Secondly, I think we may have some common ground, it just may be that we have not read the same bill. For example, folks keep saying that this will not allow women to purchase coverage even with their own money. May I direct folks to page 6, line 8: Premiums for such coverage or plan--it goes on to say--may be used as long as it's not government money. It can be the individual's own money. Third, there is this kind of myth that this will prevent women from having abortions. Medicaid currently does not pay for abortions; there are many Medicaid women who get abortions. The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program does not cover abortion. I suspect--although I don't know--that there are many women covered by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program who indeed get abortions. Empirically, we know what's being asserted is not true. Then there is the question of whether or not they're going to be denied lifesaving health care. If you go to page 4, line 20: This does not apply in the case where a pregnant woman suffers from physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed. So I think we have common ground. The leader on the other side's next point said that this is a dramatic departure from current law, but that's kind of a curious term or phrase, because we know that current law is the President's health care plan. It is current law that has turned upside down the equilibrium that had been reached between freedom of faith for the provider to practice versus the dicta of State as to what to provide. So she is right; it dramatically overturns current law--that's the point--because the Affordable Care Act dramatically overturned that delicate balance. Lastly, I want to point out something else. I'm a physician. I work in a hospital for the uninsured, and I teach medical students. I was there last Monday teaching medical students. You know, over 50 percent of the residents, probably 60 percent of the residents doing OB/GYN are women, and many of them are concerned about issues like this. As we speak about women, let's not also forget the woman's right to practice her faith. And if she chooses to practice her faith in a way which preserves life, she should not be coerced by the dictates of an overreaching State.