Floor Statements

Mr. President, as we continue to debate health care, there are some things that are kind of being debated that I call monkey dust. When two gorillas fight, they try to confuse each other by throwing dust up in the air. It has nothing to do with the substance of the fight but rather is only meant to distract the other side. That is part of what this kerfuffle, if you will--people raise per-beneficiary payments as if that is something pernicious, something that should be avoided, something which is bad.

First, we are setting this kind of in the perspective of Medicaid.

Let me speak about per-beneficiary payments. For those who are in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, the Federal Government makes a per-beneficiary payment to the insurance company to cover that Federal employee. For those States which have a Medicaid managed care company contract, the State makes a per-beneficiary payment to the Medicaid managed care company. That is a per-beneficiary payment. The reason I like this is because, inherently, the dollar follows the patient.

Now we are speaking about this in the context of a Medicaid reform program. Why should Medicaid be reformed? That is the question. Let's speak about our current Medicaid system. It is bankrupting States and the Federal Government.

In 2009, for the first time, the amount of money spent by States on Medicaid exceeded what they spent on education. Ever since then, Medicaid's expenditures are going up, and education expenditures are going down. Despite all this money, we get poor outcomes. Medicaid typically pays physicians below their cost of seeing a patient.

I pointed out in my speech yesterday that the week ObamaCare passed the House of Representatives, Robert Pear, the New York Times journalist, wrote an article in the New York Times following cancer patients on Medicaid in Michigan. What Mr. Pear found was an oncologist who had so many Medicaid patients she was going bankrupt. Indeed, she had to begin to discharge those patients from her practice because she could not pay her bills. We tracked down one of those patients who was featured, and she died 2 weeks after being discharged from the practice.

Medicaid pays so poorly that physicians cannot afford to see large numbers.

That said, it isn't just an anecdote from this New York Times article. There is a study out of MIT for the National Bureau of Economic Research, I believe it is, that found that with all the money spent on Medicaid, the beneficiary only receives 20 to 40 percent. The rest goes to institutions.

If we speak about a per-beneficiary payment, substantially all of that money goes to the patient. Under the current scenario, out of an MIT study, only 20 to 40 percent does.

Go back to the oncologist who couldn't afford to see the patients because her reimbursements were so low. What if the rest of that money, which was not being attributed to the patient, instead could go to pay her doctor, then the patient would have never been discharged.

By the way, on average, States spend 17 percent of their State dollars on Medicaid. In my own State of Louisiana, it is 19 percent, and in my State this has increased, nearly doubling from the year 2000.

Let's go back to the per-beneficiary payment, where the dollar follows the patient, as in, by the way, the insurance plans that people have under ObamaCare on the exchanges. There is a subsidy that goes to the insurance company that then provides for the patient. The dollar follows the patient. So the per-beneficiary continues to do that.

Folks say: Well, there is not enough money in Medicaid; therefore, we have to somehow do things differently. The models we use in private insurance will not work in the Medicaid population.

We looked up the SEC report for a Medicaid managed care company, and the Medicaid expansion population, they get $6,000 per enrollee. I just met today with an insurance company that was discussing the rates they are going to give on the exchanges next year. It is going to be roughly $5,500 per enrollee will be a year's premium.

So think about this. Those in the Medicaid expansion population have more Federal dollars going to support them than those citizens, those fellow Americans who are receiving their insurance on the ObamaCare exchanges. Yet we continue to hear from the Medicaid patients that they have problems accessing specialists.

There is more money in Medicaid than in the private insurance market, but the Medicaid patient can't see a specialist because the patient's specialist is being paid below cost and cannot afford to see the patient. There is something incredibly wrong here.

By the way, I should also point out that in States in which Medicaid is expanded, another MIT study found that 60 percent of those who go on the Medicaid expansion dropped private insurance--dropped private insurance--which means they go from kind of paying their own way to the taxpayer paying for them.

My own State of Louisiana recently expanded Medicaid. It might not have been 60 percent of those on the Medicaid expansion dropped their insurance, but I am told by the chief insurance company that I think about 70 to 80,000 people dropped private insurance to go on Medicaid; 60 or 70 or 80,000 people stopped paying for themselves and asked taxpayers to pay for them.

That is OK if you are the person going on Medicaid. You no longer have a deductible or a copay. I understand ObamaCare exchanges have $6,000 deductibles, and maybe that is what they had to do, but if we are going to come up with a sustainable system, that is not an answer.

What I do is encourage that there be a per-beneficiary payment, that the money follow the patient. Again, for those who say it is some terrible thing to have a per-beneficiary payment, they are ignoring all the evidence of how it is good. Think of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Probably if somebody is watching on C-SPAN, their spouse or their own policy they get through their employer, the employer pays the insurance company a certain amount of money per employee and per employee family member.

We could also do what Indiana has done. In their Healthy Indiana Plan 2.0, they made per-beneficiary payments, if you will, to Medicaid enrollees, giving them a health savings account and covering their catastrophic expenses. They found that the Hoosiers who enrolled in this used 40 percent less charity care than those with traditional insurance. These are all Medicaid patients.

Folks say: Oh, my gosh. Health savings accounts per-beneficiary payments can never work for the poor.

In this case, 70 percent of those enrolled in this program were below the Federal poverty level. Yet, nonetheless, they contributed to their own HSA. They continued making those contributions and altered their behavior to become more cost-conscious, better consumers of health care.

I always say don't underestimate patients. In my own practice, for 30 years, I worked in a hospital caring for the uninsured, and although the uninsured don't have some of the advantages in life that others have, they can take care of themselves. They know what is right and what is wrong in terms of their own interests.

So let's make those per-beneficiary payments. Let's not be distracted by those who somehow make this a bad thing. Let's believe in the American people, that they can handle their own health care and that they don't need a Washington bureaucrat to tell them how to live their health care lives.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to address a very important issue in regard to the health care of our poorest Americans and discus my plan, the Medicaid Accountability and Care Act, or the MAC Act, which is also included in my ObamaCare replacement plan which would address the failings of our current Medicaid system. My colleague from Washington just extolled the virtues of ObamaCare. As she pointed out, Medicaid clearly is a major part of the ObamaCare kind of response so it is apropos I would follow.

I wish to first tell you my perspective. I am a physician, and I had been working in a hospital for the uninsured for 25 to 30 years, until they blew it up. I saw prisoners, the uninsured, and Medicaid patients. You might say: Wait a second. Medicaid, it is insurance. Why would somebody with Medicaid insurance be seen at a hospital for the uninsured?

It is because in my State, like in most others, Medicaid pays beneath the physician's cost of seeing a patient. To paraphrase Saint Paul, it is the illusion of coverage without the power of access.

I will point out, the week ObamaCare passed, there was an article in the New York Times, written by a very respected journalist, Robert Pear, tracking a Medicaid patient in Michigan. The physician, the oncologist seeing her, had so many Medicaid patients, the oncologist was going bankrupt because she could not afford to pay her bills so she had to discharge the Medicaid patients from her practice.

I followed up to find out what would happen, and 2 weeks after being discharged from this oncologist's practice, the patient died. This is Medicaid, which is so critical to the purported success of ObamaCare.

Is it that we are not spending enough money; that maybe if we just spent a little bit more on Medicaid it would all be better.

A study from MIT found that 60 percent--let me stop. The State of Oregon did an expansion of Medicaid so researchers from MIT and elsewhere went to study it. This study found that 60 percent of the dollars used for the Oregon Medicaid expansion went to institutions, not for patients--as little as, say, 20 percent to 40 percent--but as little as 20 percent of the money that was put toward the Medicaid Program actually was a benefit for the patient. Let me repeat this. As much as 60 percent went to benefit institutions, not patients. They also found that patients on Medicaid did not have improved outcomes. Think about this. We are giving everybody all of this coverage. It is supposedly wonderful. Yet when they went back 1 year later and 2 years and 3 years later and looked at the patients covered on Medicaid-- versus those who were not, those who continued to be uninsured--there were no better health outcomes among those who are on Medicaid.

If we can't agree this is a program to reform, it is going to be hard to agree on anything.

For those who are not familiar with Medicaid, let's talk a little bit about the program. Medicaid is a Federal-State program. The Federal Government provides a certain percentage--a different percentage for each State--but the State actually administers the program. In some States, the Federal Government pays 50 percent of the cost. It can go up as much as 75 percent of the cost. In Mississippi, they put up $25, they get $75. In a State such as New York, they would put up $50 and get back $50 so it is a 1-to-1.

This open-ended financing structure is based solely on how much the State spends. I will agree with my colleague from Washington State. We should not reward States that spend incontinently. We should not reward States that just spend, but under Medicaid, the State is rewarded. The more it

spends, the more it draws down from the Federal Government.

I always smile when people speak about the economic development of Medicaid expansion. Medicaid expansion is not about economic development. It should be about taking care of patients, but I understand that perspective because they pull down at least $1 for every dollar the State spends, sometimes at the 75-percent ratio. Under the ObamaCare Medicaid expansion, States have been drawing down 100 percent of what they spend. If the State is going to draw down 100 percent of what it spends on the Medicaid expansion population-- surprise, surprise--they are actually spending at a higher rate on the expansion population than on those Medicaid patients for whom the State actually has to cover part of the cost.

The Federal Government has very little ability to weed out the corruption of the inefficient programs. Again, this matching incentive disincentivizes States from looking for ways to be more efficient, but, still, States have to balance their budget every year and Medicaid is either the second largest or largest budget item in every State. Even though the Federal Government is paying 50 percent to 75 percent of the traditional Medicaid population and 100 percent of the expansion population, the State taxpayer is still on the hook for a lot. On average, States spend 17 cents of every State dollar on Medicaid. My State of Louisiana has the highest percentage. Nineteen percent of our budget goes to Medicaid. The percentage is steadily increasing, nearly doubling since 2000. Sooner or later, even though the Federal Government covers the majority of the cost, the budget crunch gets more difficult because the rate of Medicaid spending is climbing faster than the State tax base.

Because of all the Federal requirements on what a State can change in the Medicaid Programs, in order to come up with the State match, States have two options. They can pay providers less or they can cut other programs such as education and move the money to the Medicaid Program.

First, paying physicians less brings us back to the situation Robert Pear described in his New York Times article, where the oncologist was going bankrupt because she could not afford to see more Medicaid patients.

Let's speak a little bit about education. I am just going to use my hands. In 1963, the State government used about that much for education and when Medicaid started in 1964 or 1965, about that much for Medicaid. In 2009, for the first time ever, on average, States spent more on Medicaid than on education. Now the percentage on Medicaid continues to climb, if you will, cannibalizing the State dollars that could be used to support higher education, primary and secondary education.

Let's look at the effect of the ObamaCare Medicaid expansion. Let's look not at my own State but Kentucky, a State which has been at this for a little bit longer. The previous Governor, Governor Beshear, implemented the ObamaCare Medicaid expansion---just kind of traditional Medicaid--and expanded it.

Again, my colleague from Washington State was extolling how much ObamaCare has lowered costs. When Kentucky originally implemented it, they expected the long-term cost of Medicaid expansion to be only a 4- percent increase in their current State spending on Medicaid. After only 1 year of the expansion, updated projections showed the expansion cost the Federal Government more than half a billion dollars more than Governor Beshear had projected for 2014, and this will double in the coming years, meaning that the Medicaid expansion will cost $1 billion more per year than expected. Again, this was the projected cost. This is the actual cost.

If this is saving money--oh, my gosh. What would happen if we actually lost money? By anybody's calculation, this is losing money. This has been the situation across the country. States that have expanded Medicaid have turned out to be far more expensive for the Federal taxpayer than originally anticipated. Again, it just isn't a Federal program. Like many other States across the Nation, Kentucky is facing serious fiscal issues. They do not have $1 billion lying around.

On its current path, Kentucky's own projections suggest the State will start losing $45 million in perpetuity beginning in 2021. This is a 10-percent increase. The Federal Government is putting up most, but Kentucky itself will have to put up an extra $45 million per year.

Also, given that the Federal taxpayer--you and me, us, the people watching on TV and in the Gallery--given that we, the Federal taxpayer, put up 90 percent of Kentucky's costs--well, every State's costs, we just happen to be speaking about Kentucky--but every State's costs are 90 percent of the costs in perpetuity. As this cost grows, taxpayers are on the hook for 90 percent of it. Such a deal.

It doesn't have to be this way. Let me compliment Indiana. When Vice President-Elect Mike Pence was Governor of Indiana, rather than adopting kind of ObamaCare's let's do the traditional Medicaid and watch the cost explosion--he took an innovative approach and created the Healthy Indiana Plan or HIP as an alternative to simply doling out the dollars. The plan gave each beneficiary a high-deductible plan in combination with a health savings account. It was capitated. Again, my colleague from Washington who just spoke kind of criticized these capitated plans, which means there is a set amount, and the person is, if you will, engaged in managing her dollars.

The State will put up a certain amount on a sliding scale based upon the income of the Hoosier who enrolled. The plan empowered low-income enrollees to become better consumers of health care. Hoosiers who participated--for those not from Indiana, I have learned you don't say Indianans, you say Hoosiers. So Hoosiers who participated changed behaviors. They use 40-percent less charity care than traditional Medicaid patients. Seventy percent contributed to their own HSA. Once they started contributing, virtually all continued to do so regularly. That is despite 83 percent of those participants in the Healthy Indiana Plan earning less than the Federal poverty level. Those Healthy Indiana Plan patients also saw clear improvements in care over traditional Medicaid. They decreased their emergency room utilization by 40 percent relative to Medicaid's average. Thousands more physicians chose to take Medicaid patients. Remember, at the beginning, I discussed how physicians often can't see Medicaid patients. It pays them below the cost of their seeing patients. In Indiana, thousands more chose to take Medicaid patients, improving access to quality care. Clearly, the Healthy Indiana Plan was able to work for Indiana patients. This is the sort of quality innovation that States can devise if we give them the power.

Now, revising the current funding structure would also encourage States to follow Indiana's example and develop innovative Medicaid programs to increase the efficiency in which the program spends money. Again, that is Federal taxpayer money. That is our money. For those watching right now, it is our money. We want to encourage States to be efficient with how they spend it. There should be greater flexibility to design the Medicaid program to better meet the needs of State residents. States will be given the latitude and the freedom to develop various coverage options and specialized delivery systems for different Medicaid patient populations.

This is why I developed the Medicaid Accountability and Care Act, which we call the MAC Act. It reforms the flawed financing of Medicaid by giving each State a set amount according to how many people each State has enrolled in the different categories that each State's Medicaid program treats. That is a mouthful, but it is basically exactly like the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program or like any employer who goes to an insurance company and says: I want to give you a set amount of money per employee who enrolls in your plan. For that matter, it is like Medicaid managed care, where the State will go to a managed care company and give the managed care company a set amount per enrollee in that plan.

Now, I hear people say: Oh, my gosh, it is a set amount. That is all we do in health care, except in Medicaid, where we reward inefficient spending. So if it is good enough for the State to do it to the Medicaid managed care program, why isn't it good enough for the Federal taxpayers to do it to the State? I

am not quite sure I understand the critics of this approach.

But, again, under the Medicaid Accountability and Care Act, or the MAC Act, each State would tell the Federal Government how many beneficiaries it has in different categories of Medicaid and the Federal Government would give each State the amount of money appropriate for that number of enrollees in each category. The advantage of this is it is a set amount. It allows the Federal Government to do that, which it does not do now; and that is, to say to the State government: If you recover fraud, you can keep that money.

Now, let's go back. Under the current situation, the Federal taxpayer pays 50 to 75 percent of the State's Medicaid costs. If there is fraud--and there is lots of fraud in Medicaid--and the State government recovers it, it has to give back to the Federal taxpayers whatever the percent was the Federal Government put up. So if the State goes out and recovers $1 million--spends money on the attorneys, spends money on the investigation, on the court case, and it recovers $1 million--it has to give half a million to $750 million back to the Federal taxpayers. It is responsible for the prosecution, the investigation, but it gives most of the money back to the Feds. So the States don't investigate because it is a disincentive to go after fraud.

Under the MAC Act, if the State goes out and gets $1 million worth of fraud, the State keeps the money. That is good for the State. It encourages the State to root out that fraud and to keep the money and to make sure that fly-by-night scam artists never get to become Medicaid providers in the first place.

The MAC Act's reforms will result in improved health care for Medicaid patients.

I will go back to where I started.

I am a physician who worked in a hospital for the uninsured and Medicaid patients. These are my patients. If this proposal was not about improving patient care, I would not advance it. But recall that Oregon, with their Medicaid program, upon review by MIT, found no improvement in patient outcomes. Then let's go to Indiana, which actually set up health savings accounts and engaged the patient in managing their own health, and there, we do see better outcomes. We should all be about patients having better outcomes.

Along the way, we do other things, such as equalizing the amount of money the Federal Government gives to each State per beneficiary. Again, my colleague from Washington State pointed out that folks in Washington get less money from the Federal Government than do other States. I would attempt to equalize that with the MAC Act.

So let me finish. The American people have been voting against ObamaCare for the last 8 years. Whatever its proponents may say, the American people have found it wanting. One aspect of it that has been wanting is Medicaid. We have a proposal before us based upon my experience of treating patients in the hospital for the uninsured and Medicaid but also taking States like Indiana and elsewhere in which we attempt to give States the initiative to create specialized programs that focus on patient-centered care. In that way, we will see better outcomes. The current Medicaid funding system under ObamaCare works against States, penalizing them for addressing fraud, abuse, and waste. This must change. We need to change this broken framework with a system that will work with States to get their Medicaid programs back on track, benefiting their patients as much as possible.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I hear my Democratic colleagues praising ObamaCare. I had to smile yesterday. I heard a colleague talking about how ObamaCare was addressing high pharmaceutical costs. I had to start laughing--and kind of a bitter laugh. Tell that to a senior who is paying $6,000 for her medicine, which before ObamaCare passed was a fraction of that.

We hear how great it is that ObamaCare has given so many people coverage. Say how great that coverage is to someone who has a $6,000 deductible--a $6,000 deductible--who does not have $400 in her checking account. There is a friend of mine--people don't believe it so I put it on my Facebook page. He got his quote for him and his wife. They are 60 and 61 years of age. Their premium for 1 year was $39,000, each of them with $6,000 deductibles. Again, it is on my Facebook page because otherwise no one would have believed me.

So when people speak about the affordable health care act, I have to laugh. If this is affordable, what would be unaffordable? We can clearly do better than this.

I begin this speech by calling into question my Democratic colleague's defense of ObamaCare, but we can have common ground. I applauded and still applaud the goals of those who support the Affordable Care Act. They wish to have coverage for all. Now, that is important. For over 30 years, I have worked as a physician in a hospital for the uninsured. My medical practice has been geared toward bringing coverage, to bringing care to those who otherwise would not have it.

As I look at this issue, I have to thank them for their motivation but have to recognize that the Affordable Care Act has not achieved that in a way which most Americans find affordable. The other thing about ObamaCare is that it coerces Americans. It takes power from patients and States and gives it to Washington, DC, coercing the individual with mandates and penalties, taking away her right to choose. That is not where the American people wish to be.

I would like to believe Republicans and Democrats can find common ground. I have introduced a replacement plan that would give States the power. I am willing to concede, the minority leader believes that ObamaCare is working just fine in his State of New York. In my plan, we repeal ObamaCare on a Federal level, but if a State like California or New York thinks ObamaCare is working for them, God bless them.

Under my plan, a State legislature would have the right to stay on ObamaCare. So here Congress would pass the legislation giving States the choice, and the State would either have the option we advance, which I think is superior--but when Republicans say that you can keep your health insurance if you wish, and we mean it, we mean it. If a State decided they wished to stay on ObamaCare, they could or if a State truly decides they want to have nothing at all to do with any of this, they can totally opt away from the Medicaid expansion, from any help for others in their State to purchase insurance, period.

I think this recognizes that if the minority leader wants to claim it is working in New York, they can keep it, but clearly ObamaCare is not working in some other States. We can talk about Arizona, where briefly a county did not have a single insurance company providing insurance and where premiums increased by as much as 100 percent. We can look at Louisiana, my State, where that quote I gave earlier--a fellow and his wife, $39,000 for 1 year's premium.

Clearly, ObamaCare markets are failing there. So let's repeal ObamaCare, give the States the power, allowing them to choose the system that will work for them. Now, health care cost is important. Under our bill, we make health care more affordable by giving the patient the choice, the power, if you will, of price transparency. Under ObamaCare, we have seen prices rise out of control. A lack of price transparency keeps providers from having to compete which takes away the consumer's power of choice.

You can see this power of choice price transparency. Fifteen years ago, LASIK surgery cost $1,000 an eye or $875 an eye, with more for astigmatism. Now you can drive down the street and you see a billboard--a billboard--that says: LASIK surgery $275 an eye. So over a period of time, when everything has increased, LASIK surgery has come down--the power of price transparency.

Another example I like to use is of a woman, a physician, went for her mammogram. She wanted to pay cash. They talked her out of it. No. No. No. We don't even know what to charge you.

OK. I won't pay cash.

They billed her insurance company. She later found that if she had paid cash for her mammogram, it would have cost her $90. As it turns out, they billed the insurance company $500. Her deductible was $100. She was actually out $10 because they billed her insurance company. She should have known that price going into it.

One more example. If a doctor orders a CT scan, the cash price, according to an LA Times article a few years ago in the Los Angeles Basin, varied from $250 to $2,500. Unless you are an investigative reporter for the LA Times, able to call up and get that cash price, you otherwise would not know. I guess maybe it sometimes helps to have another example. Would anyone buy a car if they did not know the price of the car beforehand? Yet that is routinely done with health care.

Under the legislation I and Senator Collins have introduced in the Senate, and I and Pete Sessions have introduced in the House of Representatives, people will know what the cash price is. I have found, working in a hospital for the uninsured, that when you the give the patient the information and power they need to know to make the better decisions, you get better outcomes.

By the way, we have been told that Republicans don't have a plan. The plans I am speaking of now are drafted in legislative language-- legislative language, again, that would repeal ObamaCare, put in price transparency, and return decisionmaking power to the patient. We should repeal the individual mandate, repeal the employer mandate, prevent the Federal Government, the long arm of the Federal Government from reaching into someone's household, forcing them to do something they don't wish to do.

There should be an alternative. Under both the World's Greatest Health Care Plan--the bill I introduced with Pete Sessions--or the Patient Freedom Act that I have Susan Collins as a cosponsor, we take all of the money a State would receive had they done the Medicaid expansion and those eligible to be signed up for the ObamaCare exchanges, and we give that money to the State to allow them to give tax credits to those who are eligible.

These tax credits could only be used for health insurance. If the patient did nothing, she would have a health savings account, catastrophic policy with a pharmacy benefit. She could use the health savings account as first-dollar coverage.

Now, under ObamaCare, $6,000 deductible. Under our plan, the patient has first-dollar coverage, so if her daughter has an earache and she takes her daughter to the urgent care center, she can cover that visit with a health savings account that would be funded with this credit. They also have catastrophic major medical coverage, so if they get in that car wreck, take them to the emergency room, sky-high pricing, they are protected from medical bankruptcy.

Under our replacement plan, we also give States the option to say that if someone in our State is eligible, they are automatically enrolled. I smile when I say that covers two populations, the person who may live under a park bench and does not have his life together to otherwise do it, and the other population would be my 22-year-old son and those like him, those young folks who never think they are going to get ill so they never sign up for insurance. Without them being in the pool, we end up with a sicker pool. That is what has happened with ObamaCare.

By the way, it would be easy to imagine you could end up with 95 percent enrollment of those eligible should the State decide to go this way. The timeframe for our replacement would be simple. In year one, say 2017 Congress

passes the enabling legislation, which in year 2018 allows the State to choose between these three options; in 2019, the State would implement the option it chooses; and by the end of 2019, we have made the transition from repeal to replace, to implementation.

Folks ask: Would I lose my coverage? I am a physician. I am going to give my perspective: a patient I might see who has breast cancer. She does not like ObamaCare. She voted for Donald Trump, but she is on the bubble financially. She is not sure she can afford coverage, but she has breast cancer. As bad as ObamaCare is, at least she is getting some care.

Now she is having to put out all this money first, but still she is getting some care. If we keep her in the prism through which we look at this problem so that in the transition from ObamaCare to better coverage she continues to have her therapy, so at the end of this, not only does she have better coverage, but she has health and recovery from breast cancer, we have done our job. That is our Republican goal, to keep our prism as that woman who is vulnerable from a sickness she has now. In our transition, she does not lose coverage; she merely moves to better coverage.

I introduced the Patient Freedom Act with 12 Senate cosponsors in 2015 and then again teamed up with Representative Pete Sessions in 2016 to introduce the World's Greatest Health Care Plan. That is truly its name. Tom Price, our soon-to-be HHS Secretary, first introduced his Empowering Patients First Act to the House of Representatives in 2014. Speaker Paul Ryan, Representative Fred Upton, Senators Richard Burr, and Orrin Hatch have also outlined plans for comprehensive health care reform.

All of these plans create a new system that returns power of choice to patients and to States. Simple provisions as I have described such as health savings accounts, instituting free market values, if we put them into a replacement plan now, we will quickly have an effect upon millions. Republicans have worked hard to lay the groundwork to repeal and replace ObamaCare.

President-elect Trump has said he wants repeal and replace to happen at the same time. He promised both. We should fulfill both promises. Our majority leader has said we can do a better job as Republicans covering more people. We have the principles, the ideas, and the plans ready to go so let's put them to use. We owe it to the American people to carry out that replacement now with a smooth transition so the insured population can grow without anyone losing coverage in the process.

Republicans are committed to creating and passing effective health care legislation to replace ObamaCare and to bring real coverage to all Americans. Now is the time to do so.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the House- passed Homeland Security appropriations bill. This bill is not just about whether we should fund the Department of Homeland Security to carry out the very important work of protecting our Nation, but also whether we will provide amnesty to those here illegally.

First, let's establish that the Constitution says Congress has authority over our immigration and naturalization laws. The President does not have the authority to waive legal requirements. The Supreme Court has upheld this on numerous occasions. The President has admitted more than 20 times he does not have this authority. That said, now his administration is attempting to block the ruling the judge recently made to protect his amnesty plan. As has been reported in the papers, Judge Hanen in Texas has put an injunction against proceeding with the President's amnesty bill. It is reported the Department of Homeland Security, at the President's direction, is moving forward with plans to seal large contracts with companies to process deferred-action applications for millions of illegal immigrants as soon as possible.

American families have seen President Obama rewrite the laws many times, and the outcomes of the recent elections show they do not support President Obama's Executive overreach. The President intends to grant amnesty to 5 million people. This will

not be done on a case-by-case basis as the law suggests it should be. It is going to be a rubberstamp, a rubberstamp at the expense of those who are legally attempting to come to our country. It will take longer for those who are attempting to come legally to gain admittance under the law. I support the efforts of those coming to the United States to make a better life for themselves and their family. We all believe in immigration. We just think immigration should be legal.

The President has rewritten the law to allow illegal immigrants the ability to receive work permits and drivers licenses which also includes receiving a Social Security number. After a certain period of time they will be eligible for Social Security. This goes far beyond his legal authority. By the way, many of my Democratic colleagues have expressed concerns about the President's action and whether he had the constitutional authority to take the action he has taken. Clearly he does not. While the President says this legal status is temporary, the reality is once work permits have been issued and Social Security cards are given, folks will be allowed to stay. They would not be deemed a priority for removal. On top of that, the temporary status may be renewed.

In 2011, the President took Executive action for the Department of Homeland Security to start prioritizing illegal immigrants for removal. In April 2014, several months before he took his most recent action, the Los Angeles Times quoted former ICE Director John Sandweg in an article where he said, If you are a run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close to zero.

The Associated Press reported in September 2014 the Department of Homeland Security admitted to a group of immigrant advocates during a confidential meeting that about 70 percent of illegal immigrants traveling as families failed to report back to ICE as ordered after they were released at the border.

A few weeks ago Louisiana school administrators and I met, and they expressed concern about how the President's immigration policies have stressed our school systems. Classroom sizes have grown. Their associated costs to hire more teachers, buy textbooks, and the required resources to educate these students all have grown. President Obama is giving Executive amnesty to suit his agenda but is stretching limited local and State resources. By stretching them, it is making it tougher on Americans who are born here.

The administration says only 5 million people will be impacted by the President's Executive order. The reality is with numerous options for illegal immigrants to remain in this country, people are going to hear about it. They will attempt to come. This will be a magnet for others to come here illegally. Illegal behavior is being rewarded.

If the President's supporters feel compelled to continue blocking the funding bill, it must be clear they feel that Executive amnesty is legal regardless of how the courts have ruled. It is clear they believe that protecting the President's illegal action is more important than providing our men and women with the resources to protect our border.

We must fund the Department of Homeland Security. As I have said, many of my colleagues who expressed serious concerns with the President's Executive actions in November are now voting to protect these actions. It is unfortunate they voted four times to prevent this bill--the Homeland Security funding bill--from coming up for debate. They won't even allow debate. Folks say they want funding for the Homeland Security Department, but they won't allow debate. This is unconscionable.

I believe it is important we move forward to avoid a shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. I urge my colleagues to please stop blocking this important legislation we must pass to protect our country and give the men and women of Homeland Security the resources they need and, most importantly, to protect the Constitution.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

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

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

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. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Cassidy

Amendment No. 1: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following: