mr. cassidy. can you talk about that? 2002 inagainst marion the primary.as a part of the first race when she won. she is actually a friend. i talked to her fairly regularly. we served together in the legislature. differenty we have ideology. they are very good people. i enjoy them. i enjoy the friendship i have with them. that said, my politics are .ifferent than mary's in louisiana, it is a pro-life state. state. natural marriage it is the only statewide democrat left in our state. beat a liberal you had to have a conservative. if we look at the last couple of elections, and the runoff, you've not had conservatives. you have had moderate. .an a term people out in last election she was able to turn out her base in a way that moderate cannot. >> what about the cost of these -- what about bill cassidy's record? he's not necessarily going to be conservative as other republican conservatives in congress. why are you concerned? >> louisiana is my home. i commute back and forth. i mixed with oaks regularly in the vertical arena. he has not been catching people's

mr. cassidy please take the well of the house. the house will now add minister the office. do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will support the constitution against enemies and bear true faith and allegiance to the same and take this obligation and you will discharge the duties on which you are about to enter, so help you good god. the speaker: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. sessions: i send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate resolution. the clerk: house resolution 450, resolution, resolved that a committee of two members be appointed by the speaker on the part of the house of representatives to notify the president of the united states that a quorum of the house has assembled and that the house is ready to receive any communication ta he may be pleased to make. the speaker: without objection, the resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to house resolution 450, the chair apoints the following members to the committee to notify the president of the united states

mr. cassidy: thank you, mr. speaker. i keep asking myself why would we not want to provide transparency? if the federal government is going to do a massive bureaucratic regime involving the american people, why should we not at least require them to be accountable for the success or failure of that regime? the exchange information disclosure act requires accountability and transparency, which has been, frankly, elusive from the administration issues. and indeed before committee and before americans, there's been a tendency to give information which is misleading. for example, enrollment numbers are calculated by the numbers who sign up for coverage not those who actually pay for their first month's premium in reality unless you pay for that first month's premium, you're not enrolled. coverage does not become effective until these are paid, and history shows many will sign up who will never actually enroll. now, the american people are affected by this. they are paying for it. we are their employees, so to speak. they pay

mr. cassidy: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise in support of the reform of the biggert-waters act. and let's first point out that the flood insurance program was reformed under biggert-waters, the goal to make it affordable and accessible and made flood insurance accessible but being implemented in such a way to make it unaffordable. the question is, as some people called it a bailout for vacation homes, for the rich people, is it going to improve the solvency of the program and see how these reforms play out. let's address each of these, this will do absolutely nothing for the solvency of the national flood insurance program. indead, it's guaranteed to make it insolvent. fema estimates that for every 10% increase in a premium, you have a 1% decrease in the number of people purchasing that policy. do the math. somebody's policy is now $700, if it rises to $7,000, they have bavelly 100% chance of dropping their policy. when that happens, fema has to cover their fixed costs. those fixed costs are concentrated under fewer and fewer subscribers under the insurance policy, which means m

mr. thornburgh. >> one of the issues the committee has been concerned about for a while is the potential relief of detainee's that were in american custody and are now in afghani cassidy. the potential, obviously, is for some folks to be released to have not only been responsible for violence against coalition forces in the past but could help lead to further violence in the future. and that think this is just one example of folks in afghanistan who are going to hedge their bets. they're not sure whether rare going to be there. they're not sure if we are committed to being there and what their result then is, folks , playing both sides of the fence which increases the danger to our troops well we are there and increases the dangers to our country's long-term. and just to emphasize a point that the chairman made, it is absolutely wrong with the president to expect our military to perform a mission that he is now willing to publicly support, publicly explained, publicly defend. that sort of on a major national security issue is needed in afghanistan more than ever. this is obvious. turn and look at what has happened. we cannot afford to have that sort of vacuum happen i