Bill Cassidy

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. I yield back.

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

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, like many Members of the House, I represent a city with a small hub airport. While multiple airlines provide service at small hub airports, most flight routes have only one airline option. Many of my constituents perceive that this lack of competition creates a higher rate of delayed flights. I share their concern and offer this amendment to require the Department of Transportation to study the issue. Specifically, the Department would analyze whether the lack of competitive flight options on some routes affects the frequency of delays and cancellations. The Department is already required to report on flight delays and cancellations, and my amendment would strengthen this report. Mr. Chairman, the availability of competitive options on flight routes is affected by a number of factors which may include industry consolidation and lack of competition on certain routes, as well as the size of the community served. This amendment would give us greater understanding about the cause of flight delays at small and medium hub airports so that we may continue to improve air service for those communities. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. I thank you. Today is World Hepatitis Day. This has special meaning for me because I'm a liver doctor, and I've spent 20 years treating hepatitis patients. Three to four million Americans have hepatitis, and about two-thirds of those folks are baby boomers. Maybe it has special meaning for me because I'm a baby boomer, but it also includes firemen, those affected at birth, Vietnam veterans, and many others who are affected by this disease. Indeed, almost every person, almost every family is touched by someone who has liver diseases. Every year in this country, thousands die from liver disease. We spend, roughly, $30 billion a year treating liver disease, and many more are frightened, even though they shouldn't be, because they know the terrible statistics I just cited. Hepatitis doesn't affect people at the end of life, but rather, it can affect people in the primes of their lives. When it does so, it potentially leaves behind orphans, widows and widowers. The best of the American spirit is compassion. Public policy should reflect this compassion, and in this case, it will be for our friends, our families and, in my case, my patients touched by hepatitis. Today, on World Hepatitis Day, I ask that we, through public policy, pledge our compassion to those so affected.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 258 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Sue Cary, for her dedication and contributions to nephrology nursing and kidney patients in Louisiana and across the country. Sue is one of my constituents from Baton Rogue and has served as President of the American Nephrology Nurses' Association (ANNA) in 2008 and 2009. Sue has been an active member of ANNA for 24 years--serving in a variety of leadership roles. As ANNA President, she has implemented a broad range of initiatives that will continue to improve care for patients whose lives depend on dialysis and other kidney replacement treatments. ANNA is one of the largest and most prestigious nursing associations in America. The organization is the recognized leader in nephrology nursing practice, education, research, and advocacy. ANNA's members are registered nurses and health care professionals that care for patients of all ages who are experiencing, or are at risk for, kidney disease. Approximately 20 million Americans have chronic kidney disease. While African Americans only make up about 12 percent of the U.S., they constitute about 32 percent of chronic kidney disease cases and are 4 times more likely than Caucasians to develop kidney failure. I urge my colleagues to take advantage of the educational opportunities offered by ANNA to learn more about kidney disease. I believe this information will help our nation better understand the issues facing kidney disease patients and nephrology nurses. Sue Cary has also recognized the importance of recruiting and retaining nephrology nurses to help ensure the future of the profession. She currently is a key figure in ANNA's annual ``Nephrology Nurses Week,'' a national campaign that recognizes and celebrates the critical role of nephrology nurses in patient care. During another annual ANNA event, Kidney Disease Awareness and Education (KDAE) Week, Sue and other nephrology nurses across the country invite state and federal legislators to visit dialysis units to learn more about kidney disease and treatments in their districts. Professionally, Sue Cary has worked as a Nurse Practitioner in Louisiana and has served as an Associate Professor, in the Division of Nursing, at Our Lady of the Lake College from 1990-2003. She has also worked as an adjunct clinical nursing faculty member for Loyola University's Registered Nurse (RN) to Bachelors of Science in Nursing (BSN) program, where she was responsible for the clinical component of the programs' ``Community Health Course.'' Please join me in commending Sue Cary for her years of service.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam Chair, I speak against the Democrats' budget and for the alternative. Justice John Marshall said that the power to tax is the power to destroy. Now, that power shouldn't be used unless we understand the consequences. This Democrats' budget taxes without regard to consequences. And I know that because it includes over $30 billion in tax increases on America's energy economy. Now, what are these consequences? The energy industry, which employs about 320,000 people in Louisiana, will not hire new workers and may have to lay some off. And, because we disincentivized domestic production, America will buy more foreign oil, as opposed to using our own oil, which is produced by American workers. I offered an amendment yesterday to establish a point of order against tax legislation that would either destroy U.S. energy jobs or increase our dependence on foreign oil, and I was defeated on a straight party-line vote. The only recourse to save these jobs, which are not for CEOs, but are for people who work on rigs, they're welders, they are pipeline pipefitters. The only way to save these jobs and defend America's energy security is to vote against this Democrats budget.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, in times of hardship, leaders must inspire hope; and, to his credit, President Obama inspires hope. But without planning, reason, and a sense of what works, inspired hope can be a hoax. History in economics demonstrates that the path to prosperity is hard work, sound investment, lower taxes, and less debt. Whether in a family business or government, debt imprisons. In the short term, debt can elevate the standard of living; but if income grows slower than debt, debt destroys that standard of living. And my fear is that the trillions in debt that the President is creating will swallow economic growth and destroy that standard of living. Our economic future will be pawned, our future in debtor's prison. The President is ambitious and impatient, but I ask that his ambition not deafen him to the lessons of history and economics. I ask him to inspire hope not just for the present, but also for the future.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. You're so bitter about that loss, you call me Patrick instead of Cassidy. I actually teach residents. I'm still on faculty with LSU Med School. It's not accidental that we end up having too few specialists. For example, just to put the issue into focus, only about 2 percent of medical school grads in 2007 planned to go into a primary care career. That's 2 percent. Now, it's not accidental why this is. As it turns out, the Federal Government gives more money to train specialists. It gives less to train a generalist and more to train a specialist. When you're out, reimbursement is less for visits, but more for procedures. So the primary care physician that we don't have enough of gets paid less for the amount of effort he or she puts into their job. So I say this to say that it's Federal policies that have gotten us here, and there are wise Federal policies that can get us out. But I want to just give a little bit of humility to the people who want to remake our system, assuming that a top-down approach will benefit. I echo what Dr. Price said--it's better to have that patient in charge of the system. When it's top down, we end up with systems which end up skewing us towards more specialists and fewer generalists. I think if we take history as a guide, we will say that we will be much better if the patient have the power as opposed to CMS or another Federal bureaucracy having the power. With that, I yield back.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. The thought also occurs to me that obviously the jobs that are created that do have long-term benefit are created by those small businesses. And so the thought occurs to me, someone said, a commentator of some sort, it is good that the stimulus package is going to have people hire two more, say, police officers. That is good. It helps safety on the street. But two more police officers does not create 10 more jobs. On the other hand, if we can enable that small business, that small business will create 10 more jobs. So, again, it just keeps echoing in my mind, ``the power to tax is the power to destroy.''

Mr. CASSIDY. Thank you. It is interesting, as you are talking, two things occurred to me. You mentioned how taxes have the ability to create uncertainty. Now, if we just take this, not from the nationwide but bring it down to a family in Louisiana. This new budget is going to tax oil and gas exploration. Well, it turns out 90 percent of oil and gas is done not by ExxonMobil but by small wildcatters, if you will, and these folks employ about 320,000 people in my State in petrochemical. Now, these are great jobs. These jobs give benefits. They allow people to pay their mortgage. They are not service level in that sense, but they are jobs of the type that you can raise a family. So earlier we heard our Democratic colleagues speaking about our need for energy independence, and I am struck. I am new here, so I don't quite understand it. We want energy independence. We want to create good jobs for working folks with good benefits, help the uninsured, but at the same time we are penalizing a domestic energy industry, which cannot move because it is domestic, which is helping our energy independence and which is creating these jobs.

Mr. CASSIDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. CASSIDY. Will the gentleman yield? It is a little bit ironic because I actually think our hopes are bipartisan. Our hopes are that we create jobs for the American people. Let's give it to our Democratic colleagues. They felt like spending this $1 trillion dollars is actually going to stimulate jobs. Now, as I listened to you, Mr. Pitts, speak about your committee, John Marshall's quote occurs to me, ``the power to tax is the power to destroy.'' I think our function here is actually to connect the fact that we share that hope for more jobs. But our fear is this tax, which is being justified by this deficit spending, will destroy. It will destroy these kind of jobs that we have in Louisiana for folks who may not go to college, but nonetheless are earning $70,000 to $80,000 a year and sending their kids to good schools with good benefits. And we are going to destroy it in the name of creating new jobs. When I was running for office, Congressman Rooney, that was backward logic: Let's destroy in order to save.

Mr. CASSIDY. And gals.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. I thank the chairman.

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage the chairman of Education and Labor in a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, Teach for America has been in the AmericaCorps program since 1994 and is the Nation's largest professional service corps. This program recruits top college graduates of all backgrounds and career interests to commit to teach for at least 2 years in our Nation's most underserved classrooms. To date, 20,000 Teach for America corps members have enriched the lives of more than 3 million low-income students in our Nation's lowest performing schools. While only the one in ten Teach for America corps members initially planned on a career in education, two-thirds remain in the field in some capacity. This only goes to further demonstrate the life-changing impact this kind of service can have on an individual. Teach for America is also experiencing remarkable growth as more and more Americans look to give back to their communities. Applications are up 40 percent this year, with 35,000 people applying to serve through Teach for America alone. Given this growth and its potential to expand and meet the needs of underserved students across the Nation, is it correct that, under this bill, Teach for America will continue to be eligible under the professional corps' description of the model for funding under the Education Corps or any of the other newly created corps programs under section 122? I yield to the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, and ask if this understanding is correct.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, as regards to energy, I'm an all-of-the- above-type person. We need a diversity of energy sources. But we will not be carbon free for generations. Our need for plastics, fertilizers, lubricants, and fuels so dictates. So given the fact that we're not going to be carbon free, it seems like domestic energy production should be encouraged. If we've got to have something, it's better for us to buy it from ourselves, for our workers, for the money to stay here. In Louisiana alone, my home State, oil and gas production in the petrochemical industry employs 320,000 people. They work as welders, pipe-fitters, on barges, engineers. Countless small businesses with another 100,000 or so workers. Yet the President's budget contains at least eight separate tax hikes specifically targeting domestic oil and gas production. Tax hikes create uncertainty, uncertainty creates caution, and caution inhibits economic activity. As we seek energy security and to create and preserve American jobs, I have to ask why are we punishing the industry which contributes both?

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, secret ballots say a lot about the societies that defend and preserve them. They say that society trusts the people, and given the facts and the arguments, the people themselves are trusted to make the right decisions. You can be persuaded. You can be begged. But in the privacy of the voting booth, your vote is your own. When government attempts to abolish the private ballot, it says that people are not trusted. It says to every citizen, you, do not know what is good for you. For over 60 years, American workers have decided whether to unionize in secret ballot elections, for the very same reasons that in political elections we cast our votes in private. Card check assaults that right. It imposes coercion over conscience, force over freedom. Since 1776 Americans have expected Congress to defend their democratic rights, not abolish them. Card check denies fundamental democratic rights to over 100 million Americans. Congress should defend this right.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 91, offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers). This resolution honors the life and service of William Spoelhof, president emeritus of Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Dr. Spoelhof was born in 1909 in Paterson, New Jersey, and passed away on December 3, 2008, at the age of 98. He graduated from Calvin College in 1931 and began teaching social studies at the middle school level. In 1937, he received his Master of Arts degree, and began his doctoral studies at the University of Michigan. During World War II, Dr. Spoelhof enlisted in the U.S. Navy and served our country in the Office of Strategic Services. He was awarded the Bronze Star Medal by the Navy for his service. Also, for his contributions in liaison with the Dutch Resistance Movement, Dr. Spoelhof was honored by Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands with the Order of Orange-Nassau with swords and a laurel wreath. Following the war, in 1946, he completed his doctoral work and returned to Calvin College to teach history and political science. After becoming President of Calvin College, Dr. Spoelhof oversaw the process of moving Calvin College from its original Franklin Street campus, located in urban Grand Rapids, to its current campus in southeast Grand Rapids. Dr. Spoelhof carefully balanced Calvin College's vision for excellent academics with its relationship with the Christian Reformed Church as he effectively steered the college through occasional church conflicts and the tumultuous, nationwide student protests of the 1960s. In 1976, after 25 years of service as an administrator, Dr. Spoelhof became the longest-serving president in Calvin College's history to date. After his formal retirement, he was named president emeritus and maintained an office and steady presence at the college, offering continued support and goodwill whenever needed. Dr. Spoelhof was a Christian role model and mentor to many faculty members, staff and students as he provided wisdom and counsel to thousands during his more than six decades of service to Calvin College. Dr. Spoelhof lived a life of gratitude and desired to give glory to God in all that he did. On December 3, 2008, Calvin College lost a visionary leader and wise friend. He is to be honored and recognized for his outstanding devotion and service as a member of the military, a Calvin College professor, and president and friend. Again, I commend the gentleman from Michigan for introducing this resolution and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. CASSIDY. I yield back my remaining time.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, I would classify ``intelligence'' as important, but when I was back in my district last weekend, what folks asked me about was the stimulus package. They sense that something is needed, but they also sense, as, I think, all of us do, that what is most important are tax cuts and infrastructure development. Yet the bill that came out last week reminded me a little bit as though my wife had sent me to Wal-Mart and had said, ``I want you to get some bread and meat,'' and instead, I come back with a DVD and a grill. Now, DVDs and grills are great, but someday, you have got to pay the credit card bill. Right now, we have to focus on the bread and meat--the jobs and the infrastructure--not on the DVDs and grills. I keep on thinking: What would Dave Ramsey say? He is the guy who kind of advises couples on how to get out of financial difficulty. Dave would say, ``Get a job, and stop spending on your credit card.'' Now, the parts of this that are infrastructure and tax cuts are ``get a job,'' but the part of this that is maxing out the credit card and that is putting $2,700 worth of debt on my children and grandchildren going henceforth is the part that Dave would advise against. I ask that we in Congress follow Dave Ramsey's wisdom--that we focus on tax cuts and infrastructure and forgo the rest.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. You know, I was just kind of sitting in my office, kind of sitting there staring at the Capitol dome, kind of frustrated. And I came to Washington--I'm a freshman, this is my first talk--and I came not to oppose what Democrats do automatically because they're Democrats, I came to try and do something good for my country. And the remarkable thing is there is an incredible amount of agreement between the two parties. We agree the economy is in trouble. We agree that the government can do something to make it better. We agree that tax cuts and infrastructure can create jobs. And I'm sitting there thinking, man, we've got so much we agree on, why don't we just pull it together and pass a bill? And yet, where we disagree is whether or not discretionary spending--you know, stuff that doesn't create jobs, but folks want to get it--whether that should be included in the bill. And so I'm sitting there thinking, wait a second, we can consider that in a spending bill, why do we have to put it in this? And as a Republican, I have to say that I don't think we should, and I don't think we should for at least three reasons. First, we said we're going to have a bill that creates jobs, and this is about discretionary spending. The second thing that just kind of disturbs me, as you have spoken about so----

Mr. CASSIDY. Yes. I think that, again, what we agree on is that tax cuts--particularly for individuals and small businesses-- infrastructure, that can create jobs. If we could just focus on that, we would have a bipartisan bill that all of America could sign onto, and no one would wake up and suddenly feel like there's been a bait and switch; rather, they would say this is what we asked for, this is what we've been given, now let's see the benefit. And as a personal observation of my very first speech, I would ask that we, as both parties, give the American people what we truly said we would as opposed to something which is more than we said we are.

Mr. CASSIDY. Exactly. And we should not be running up our credit card bill to get the DVD player and the iPod and that other stuff that is purely discretionary. You know, we have a credit card debt here which we're eventually going to have to address. And so, there are three reasons why I don't think we should do this. One, we said we're going to do a job bill and we're doing something more than that. Two, there's going to be a $1.2 trillion price tag on much of which is not related to job stimulation. And you know what the third thing is? I'm 50 years old, but I'm still kind of a young idealist. I thought those people at home heard ``a change you can believe in'' and ``yes, we can,'' and they thought that this was a new era of politics. And yet, if I may point out to the gentleman, it almost seems as if we've taken those two phrases, which hold so much promise, and we're making them out to be nothing but cheap political slogans. We say we're going to give you a job bill, and instead we give you a discretionary spending bill. We say we're going for jobs, and instead we go for that which is--maybe important, but certainly not related to job creation.

Mr. CASSIDY. You know what this bill is like? When my wife sends me to Wal-Mart and tells me to buy bread and milk, and instead of coming home with bread and milk, I come home with CDs, I come home with DVD players, and I come home with all this stuff that actually I've had my eye on for a long time. And when she finally sends me to Wal-Mart, I get to get what I want. And yet, really what's important to my family is that I come home with bread and milk.