NFIP Extension Act of 2023

Mr. President, as I outlined yesterday, the Senate's pending business on appropriations is tremendously important to America's farmers, to our veterans, and to the future of our airports, roads, bridges, and ports. My home State of Kentucky is certainly no exception.

The Commonwealth is home to a host of important and overdue infrastructure projects. As a transportation and logistics hub, my home State boasts an impressive network of roads, ports, railroads, and waterways that keep our economy and the American people literally on the move. Overhauling this infrastructure strengthens the essential link folks in Kentucky have to the rest of the Nation while making those transit resources faster, more efficient, and more reliable for everyone.

I am also proud of Kentucky's diverse agriculture industry, made up of over 75,000 farms, an overwhelming majority of which are family- owned and family-operated. Kentucky's rural communities understand the importance of efforts like expanding rural broadband deployment and protecting livestock from diseases that can financially devastate small family farms.

Certainly, our work in the coming days will also impact Kentucky's Army installations and National Guard facilities. Investments in military construction ensure our brave men and women in uniform have access to the world-class training facilities they need to defend our country. Maintaining Kentucky's premier fighting forces is critical to deterring aggression from our adversaries and protecting American strength.

So, as the Senate continues to make progress on regular order appropriations, I am pleased to see Kentucky take center stage in solving some of the real issues that face our people.

National Security

Mr. President, America's defense industrial base is in the middle of a historic transformation. This is something Republicans have been working toward literally for years. It is good news for America's national security. In fact, it is essential for our strategic

competition with communist China; and, today, I would like to talk a bit more about what exactly is making this urgent progress possible.

Over the past year and a half, the lethal U.S. aid helping Ukraine defend its sovereignty and degrade Russia's military has consisted, in large part, of aging weapons stocks that were sitting in our own arsenal--in many cases, literally collecting dust.

The security assistance money appropriated ``for Ukraine'' isn't just buying weapons for Ukraine; it is also replenishing and modernizing America's own arsenal, and the vast majority of it is going to American defense manufacturers. This includes funding to expand production lines of munitions needed by the U.S. military as well as vulnerable allies in both Asia and Europe that want and need American weapons. That is tens of billions of dollars directly supporting tens of thousands of jobs in at least 38 States so far. Support for Ukraine is driving historic investments in the communities that we all represent.

Take the 155-mm artillery round. Replenishing America's stockpile of this critical munition has meant sending $3.6 million to producers in Nevada, $48 million to Florida and Illinois, $65 million to Ohio, $141 million to Arizona, $174 million to Tennessee, $181 million to Virginia, $355 million to Pennsylvania, and $519 million to Texas. That is nearly $2 billion worth of direct investment in American industry, American jobs, and American strength.

And, contrary to critics who say Ukraine is a distraction from China, this investment isn't flowing in spite of our support for Ukraine but actually because of it.

A West Virginia facility that supports 1,600 jobs has significantly increased production of motors and warheads for guided multiple-launch rocket systems, for which there is increased global demand; and a St. Charles, MO, facility that employs 1,300 workers--so-called Ukraine money--has funded a vastly expanded production line to build fresh stocks of extended-range, JDAM precision-guided munitions.

These are actually transformational investments, and they wouldn't have happened without the supplemental funding that we approved last year. We are not just talking about buying new stocks but about expanding production capacity to meet U.S. and allied demand. This is a critical piece of our race to compete with China.

In fact, that same Missouri munitions production line is also set to fulfill orders from some of America's closest allies and partners in Asia. That is right. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and the Philippines are arming themselves with American munitions to deter China.

And the same is true for other critical munitions. Thanks to Ukraine funding, we are on a path to double the production of critical weapons like Stingers and Javelins, along with innovative new weapons like the ground-launched, small-diameter bomb, which will be produced in Arkansas and New York. This expanded production capacity will benefit America as well as partner militaries from European to Asia.

I will have more to say in the coming days about the historic investments our allies are making here in the United States as a direct result of American leadership, but, for now, I am tremendously proud of our own work to invest in American industry, American workers, and American strength.

Inflation

Now, Mr. President, on one final matter, I spoke yesterday about the Biden administration's war on American energy and how working families are feeling it at the gas pump, but energy prices are not the only reason it has been so hard to balance household budgets on Washington Democrats' watch.

Just this morning, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that inflation increased by 0.6 percent this month, putting year-over-year inflation at 3.7 percent. That is well above the Federal Reserve's 2- percent target, and it puts cumulative inflation since President Biden took office at over 17 percent.

But as the American people continue to struggle against rising costs, the President appears to be taking a victory tour, touting Bidenomics as one of his crowning achievements. Over the Labor Day weekend, President Biden told voters that Bidenomics ``is working.'' The American people are not fooled by this. They can feel the pinch in their wallets, and they know that Washington Democrats' runaway spending is the reason for it.

As one woman told reporters recently, ``I don't think [President Biden] has the everyday people's best interests in mind. . . . Everything has gone up--electricity, groceries, fuel. . . . It's not fair to the American people.''

Well, she is not alone. According to one recent survey, a large majority of Americans disapproves of the President's handling of the U.S. economy. Families are paying 20 percent more at the grocery store. Credit card debt has surpassed $1 trillion for the first time ever, and overall real wages are down 2.3 percent since 2021.

The numbers do not lie. Even Biden's Secretary of Commerce has said that inflation is ``still a challenge'' and ``something that people still see on a daily basis when they go to the grocery store or pay their mortgage.''

Bidenomics may be working, but it is working against working Americans.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, Monday marked 22 years since the 9/11 terrorist

attacks on our Nation. Although we are now over two decades removed from one of the greatest tragedies in our Nation's history, the memories remain in our minds as if it had just happened yesterday. We will never forget.

Many of us were here that day, including me, and I certainly will never forget that awful horrible tragic day. Those horrific events in New York City and Washington, DC, and Shanksville, PA, forever changed the national security of the United States of America. Our Nation banded together, and we supported one another as we rebuilt and recovered.

As part of our collective response, we saw the beginnings of the Global War on Terror. Together, with the help of our allies, we made significant progress in countering violent extremism and eliminating the territorial gains that the Islamic State had made.

While this threat still remains today, we made progress in diminishing the ability of terrorists to harm Americans. Now we are again seeing the landscape of our national security shift as we are facing a new challenge of rising threats from nations like Russia and China.

Putin's unwarranted aggression has created a large-scale ground war in the European continent--something that was really nearly unthinkable just a few short years ago.

Adding to that, we are witnessing the unprecedented buildup of the Chinese military state. Make no mistake, those Chinese military investments were made with U.S. capabilities in mind.

Nations that directly oppose U.S. values and interests are beginning to create an uneasy closeness with one another. Just yesterday, North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Un, pledged ``full and unconditional support'' for Russia's Vladimir Putin. And we don't know what the behind-the- scenes conversations were or the tradeoffs that were made.

This is something that we must monitor closely, and it demands a collective and united response. The growing threat from China was something that I discussed with the United States Indo-Pacific Command leaders when I met with them over August. This is a real threat and underscores the importance of working with our allies in this region.

Our allies in the Indo-Pacific area are very important when it comes to both deterrence efforts and facilitating U.S. operations in the event of a crisis or conflict. That cooperation is a key piece in our ability to protect the power that the United States has led with.

The AUKUS agreement between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States further cements this relationship and ensures that we will become even more interoperable with our allies in the Indo- Pacific.

We need to maintain a strong military posture in this region and bolster our cybersecurity and technological abilities to ensure that our Nation and our allies will be ready for any and all threats that we may face.

The intrinsic relationship between China and Taiwan and Russia and Ukraine cannot be lost on us. There is no doubt that China and Xi Jinping are closely watching Russia's attempted land grab and are taking notes of the united resistance that they are now facing. Stopping Russia in Ukraine will send a clear and direct signal to China that violent, unwarranted aggression will be met with a swift and unified response.

It is vitally important to recognize that supporting Ukraine explicitly and clearly strengthens our own national security. I truly believe that is a fact. Our support for Ukraine has benefited the United States by illuminating vulnerabilities in our own defense industrial base, which we now have the opportunity to remedy. Without this, we might not have discovered these issues until a crisis of our own, and these production challenges would have severely disabled our ability to defend ourselves and strengthen our U.S. warfighters in a time of conflict.

It is important to recognize that funding Congress has appropriated in support of Ukraine is going directly back into our own capabilities. This has initiated facilities upgrades at our ammo plants. It has boosted production at our defense industrial base sites and funded replenishment of our own U.S. arsenal.

As Leader McConnell mentioned on Monday, by showing support for Ukraine, Americans are making strides in our competition with China, we are degrading the Russian military capacity, we are encouraging our allies to ``Buy American,'' and we are reassuring the importance of investing in their own defense. We have seen this directly from our allies like Australia and Japan, which are making serious investments in their defense capabilities, or the UK, which has also pledged meaningful military support for Ukraine.

Moving forward, NATO members need to take the commitment to pledge 2 percent of their GDP towards defense more seriously and move at the speed of the threats that we face.

One thing is for certain: This is not a time to show weakness. However, President Biden and his administration have unfortunately not shown the strength needed in the face of these rising threats. We saw this in the botched withdrawal in Afghanistan in 2021, where 13 of our servicemembers senselessly--senselessly--lost their lives, or just this weekend when President Biden claimed, while he was on a trip to the Far East, that ``we're all better off if China does well.'' And then on 9/11, of all days, the Biden administration notified Congress that they are negotiating with the leading sponsor of terrorism--Iran--and sending $6 billion in frozen assets with little or no accountability.

Actions like these endanger every American abroad and display a level of deficiency that is inconsistent--inconsistent--with the true standing and power that the United States has.

We are currently at a pivotal moment in our history, both in the history of our Nation but also the history of the world. American leadership has always transcended nefarious forces. That, I am confident in. We must always lead with the strength that defines this leadership and work to ensure that our national security remains the foremost priority that it deserves to be.

My own State of West Virginia, which has deep roots of military service and patriotism, has established a growing presence and participation in our national defense infrastructure. West Virginia companies and universities are stepping up and are contributing in increasingly important ways to the military industrial base in this country. From ammunition production to cybersecurity advancements and critical components for vehicles, aircraft, and weapons, West Virginia is leading the way. Our country must follow this example and continue this level of investment into our national security, with each and every one of us contributing to the proud tradition of American leadership.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Iowa and just say that it is long overdue that this institution gets back to regular order when it comes to processing appropriation bills. If you look at the way that you govern a country and have as much spending and debt on an annual basis as this country does, you need to do it in a way that reflects each individual bill being considered so that individual Senators--not just those on the Appropriations Committee but those in the entire Senate--have an opportunity to have their voices heard.

In the last few years, we have ended up with, as the Senator from Iowa pointed out, a huge omnibus spending bill at the end of the year put together, cobbled together, by a bunch of people in a back room. That is not the way to run a government, a government of this size and scope, with as many moving parts as we have. We need the oversight that comes with the annual appropriations process, and we need the fiscal responsibility and restraint, hopefully, that comes with a regular appropriations process.

So I would echo that and am pleased that the Senate Appropriations Committee has reported the bills out to the floor of the Senate. I would hope, now, that the Democratic leader will ensure that that is job No. 1; that is, taking up these bills and passing them in a way that reflects not only the will of our constituents, which is to have more visibility and transparency and accountability when it comes to government spending, but also a way that reflects the rights and the prerogatives that their elected representatives have to consider these things in the light of day and to have their voices heard whether they serve on the Appropriations Committee or not.

School Hunting and Archery Program Funding

Mr. President, since taking office, President Biden has not hesitated to use the power of the modern regulatory state to advance his far-left agenda, at times in contravention of the clear intent of Congress.

Take his recent decision to cancel oil and gas leases in Alaska in defiance of congressional direction or his radical interpretation and implementation of the Green New Deal provisions of the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, which has left one of the bill's Democratic authors deeply frustrated with the White House.

But today I want to talk about another instance of Presidential overreach, and that is the Biden administration's decision to use the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to deny Federal funding to school hunting and archery programs. The provision of the bill the administration is citing as justification for its decision denied Federal funding for training or arming teachers and school resource officers. It was not intended to prevent hunting safety training or deny students the opportunity to participate in archery programs. In fact, neither hunting nor archery is ever mentioned in the legislation. But, characteristically, the Biden administration has decided to make use of this provision to further advance its far-left agenda.

Mr. President, for the sake of the Biden administration, which frequently seems completely out of touch with rural America, let me just talk about hunting for a minute. Hunting is a venerable institution in rural communities. It is about gathering meat to fill the freezer, yes; but it is also about much more than that. It is about community, tradition, coming together around the table, conservation, and respect for the land.

My dad taught me and my siblings to hunt, and while we learned how to bag roosters, we also learned a lot of life lessons, from patience to perseverance to gun safety. I cherish those times with my dad and the times I spend today hunting with my family, friends, sons-in-law, and people on an annual basis, just to get together for an opportunity to spend time together, quality time together, in the beautiful outdoors in South Dakota.

School districts should have the choice of spending their Federal extracurricular dollars on programs that teach kids how to carry on this venerable tradition safely and responsibly.

HuntSAFE for Schools, which teaches hunting safety in South Dakota schools, uses nonfunctional guns to teach kids about hunting, with ``an emphasis on firearm safety and responsibility.''

These kinds of programs have an effect. Learning to safely handle firearms results in a decrease in firearm-related injuries and accidents. Hunting education programs have contributed to a steep decline in hunting accidents. Funding these programs in schools seems like a good thing to do to promote safer communities.

As for archery, I am going to tell you, I am at a complete loss as to why the Biden administration would seek to deny Federal funding to these programs. The National Archery in the Schools Program, which has 1.3 million students in nearly 9,000 schools in 49 States enrolled in archery programs, offers students the opportunity to experience all the benefits of an accessible and inclusive sport that teaches everything from personal excellence to perseverance.

The National Archery in the Schools Program reports that 58 percent of participating students say they feel more connected to their school, 40 percent feel more engaged in the classroom, and a whopping 91 percent pursue or want to pursue other outdoor activities as a result of their archery participation.

Once again, school districts should have the choice of spending their Federal extracurricular dollars on programs like this that unquestionably--unquestionably--meet the goal of helping to offer students a well-rounded education. And it is a use of those dollars that Congress never sought to ban, as I suspect the Biden administration is well aware and already knows.

There have already been reports of schools canceling plans to include hunting or archery education in their curricula as a result of the Biden administration's directive. The Biden administration needs to immediately reverse its decision before more programs are canceled and more kids lose out on opportunities to develop the confidence, the skills, and the sense of community that come from participating in these programs.

I have little hope that the Biden administration will rein in its radical agenda or stop using its regulatory power to impose its far- left visions, but I am grateful that both Democrats and Republicans are raising questions about this particular instance of Biden administration overreach. I hope we can continue to work to curb the Biden administration's regulatory excesses and prevent Americans from suffering the painful consequences of this President's radical policies.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I am delighted to be here with my colleagues, the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Kansas.

I am going to start by answering a question that the Senator from Kansas asked rhetorically: Why is it that American citizens and consumers and merchants pay seven times what is paid by merchants and individuals in Europe? It is because our government doesn't protect our consumers. Our government is not protecting our merchants and our small businesses.

Where there is a monopoly or, in this case, a duopoly and there is this massive pricing power that Visa and Mastercard have, they are doing what monopolies and duopolies do. They abuse that pricing power, and they just stick it to our merchants. It was $33 billion in charges in 2013, and it is $93 billion in charges now. And it is not as though the expenses for Visa and Mastercard have really gone up anything close to that.

Inflation is their ally, as the Senator said. COVID was their ally, as we had to rely more on those cards. And they justify what they are doing because it is a convenience for the shopper. You know what, it is a convenience for the shopper. It is a convenience for the merchant. But how does that justify a rip-off just because you are doing something that we need?

And it is folks in Kansas who voted for my Republican colleague, it is folks in Illinois who voted for my Democratic colleague, and it is all of the people we represent, not only these small businesses that are absolutely essential to our local economy and to the vitality of our small communities.

We were at that press conference, and Senator Marshall's grocery store folks were here. They were salt of the Earth. They were like--the highest compliment I can give: They are almost like Vermonters, all right. They were terrific people. And we had a father, and we had the son who was going into the family business, and the family business is about serving people in that community.

And we have got a store in Vermont, Dan & Whit's, which has been there for generations, and its motto is, ``If we don't have it, you don't need it.'' And you can basically get anything you want. But, do you know, during COVID, when they had these incredible challenges with workforce, they actually put an ad on the signboard, and retired folks from Norwich would come help do the work, stack the shelves, and do the checkout.

And when a lot of my neighbors found out that every time a customer used a credit card it was costing Dan & Whit's 2 to 3 to 4 percent just so they would pay the bill, they were shocked and appalled. And this store, like the Senator's store in Kansas, all of them--retail is hard. That is such hard work. You have got to watch your costs. You have got to save your money. You have got to provide really good service.

And Senator Durbin mentioned the second highest expense for many of these small merchants is the cost of the credit card, paying the bill. And it is invisible to most of us when we use our card, because I always thought, if I use my card and I pay my bill, I am not going to have to pay those 25 percent interest rates. But when I found out about what was going on, how much the merchants were getting ripped off, it actually was the last time we had over $4 gas and I was filling up at my local small convenience store, and I went in and talked to the owner. I got my coffee and got a doughnut. But he got out his bill, and he showed me that when I filled up the tank of gas, with the swipe fee and then the percentage that was taken out--and a very, very small margin on the sale of a gallon of gas for these stores--he was losing money. Visa and Mastercard were doing fine, but my local merchant was losing money.

And the thing that I so enjoy about being with my colleagues here and Senator Vance on this bill is, at the heart of this, we understand that, in rural America and smalltown America and in neighborhoods even in big cities like Chicago, these local stores, these merchants, they give us so much service and so much emotional satisfaction. It is where you stop in, you talk to folks you see every day, you share the stories about who won, what happened to the Bears, what happened to the Patriots. But we need those places. Our communities, democratic life need those places.

And this is not a Democratic-Republican deal. All of the people we represent and all of America want to have a sense of community, and who more than our local merchants, who oftentimes live above the store, right? I mean, a pretty tough job.

They come down, sweep it up in the beginning and at the end. They give kids their first jobs. So many high school kids work in these stores, and they learn how to be good employees, how to do good customer service. The ability to hire these kids gets compromised because of this extra expense.

And, really, what are they doing? We are paying a bill, all right. They have got incredible intellectual property. They have got security systems and all of that. It is good. It is a service.

So no dispute there. But just because you are providing a service doesn't entitle you to rip off everyday merchants because you can.

And the question that I think we have to ask as the U.S. Senate is, What is our job and whom do we work for? Our job is not to pad the already obscene profits of Visa and Mastercard. Our job is to protect our merchants who are doing the work day in and day out and our consumers who are doing their best to stay afloat, pay their bills, get from one end of the month to the other, and hope their checks clear and they can pay their credit card bill.

Our obligation is to the people who have no power but who do have a right to expect that their elected Representatives and Senators, when they see a rip-off, will call it a rip-off and stand up and say: You are going to get treated fairly.

And that is essential for restoring our trust and faith in one another. It is essential for our obligation to help communities that are working so hard to create a sense of place that people want, a sense of connection that we want, to make certain that those businesses that are doing so much in all of our communities--that are doing so much in all of our communities--can keep doing that work that is strengthening communities, providing good jobs to our kids.

And do you know what? Let's act. Let's pass Senator Durbin's and Senator Marshall's bill, and let's protect our merchants against these rip-off credit card fees from Visa and Mastercard.

I yield back.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I want to start today by thanking Senator Collins once again for her partnership in putting together the package that we are now considering. I am very pleased she was able to join me on the floor yesterday as we both spoke about the effort that has gone into getting this bill off the ground.

At risk of repeating myself, I would like to speak again about how we crafted the bills before us and urge all of my colleagues to join us to debate and advance this package.

Today, we are doing something that many Senators have been calling for, for quite some time, something Senator Collins and I have been hearing about from our colleagues since the moment we took over the leadership of the Appropriations Committee. We are keeping our foot on the gas as we continue returning the appropriations process to regular order for the first time in years.

Last night, we began the process to allow the Senate to consider a legislative package of three strongly bipartisan funding bills.

Let me just say this again: Getting to this point was no easy feat.

I am grateful to my partner on the Appropriations Committee, Vice Chair Collins, for working with me to make this happen and to all of our Members, especially the subcommittee chairs, who worked on the bills in the package before us today. Senator Collins and I knew from the start, if we wanted this to work, we had to write serious bipartisan funding bills that can actually be signed into law.

As I said yesterday, that meant a few things. First of all, we are going to have to abide by the topline numbers that were set in the debt limit deal, and I shared my personal concerns about that limit before. They have meant some tough choices because that was agreed on by the House and the Senate for all of us in these bills. But President Biden and Speaker McCarthy shook hands. They shook hands, and we passed this deal in Congress in a bipartisan way.

The reality is, we can't produce serious bills if we start by throwing that bipartisan framework out the window. So we didn't do that. We worked within the framework, and I pushed at every stage of the process with my colleagues to make sure we produced the strongest possible bills under those circumstances because we simply have to move forward, not back.

Secondly, we understood that we were going to have to work together to find common ground, including on some very tough and thorny issues, and compromise where necessary to produce spending bills that can make it through both Chambers and to the President's desk. That meant avoiding poison pills that could sink these bills.

Third, we understood it was important that we give each and every one of our colleagues the chance to weigh in on these bills and the American public the chance to see us work on them. So we held over 40 hearings this spring to assess our Nation's needs for the year ahead. We sought input from all of our colleagues, including requests for congressionally directed spending so Members could advocate for project they know are crucial for their States. Then we held markups with debate and amendments from Members on both sides, and we actually televised the markups for the first time ever so people could follow this debate from home.

The result is that we passed all 12 of our funding bills out of committee for the first time in 5 years, and we did it with overwhelming bipartisan support. In fact, all three of the bills that are included in the package we are now considering passed the committee unanimously.

As I detailed in my remarks yesterday, these bills provide essential investments for programs that all of our communities rely on. The MILCON-VA bill provides funding to shore up our military installations and improve quality of life for our servicemembers and to make sure that we live up to our obligation to get our veterans the care they need.

The Ag-FDA bill funds programs that are critical to making sure our food supply is safe and secure, getting families the support they need to put dinner on the table, and helping our farmers to stay ahead of global competition.

And the T-HUD bill, the third one, provides crucial investments to help keep people living in their homes, not on the streets, and to make sure we can get people and goods quickly and safely where they need to go.

I look forward to saying more about these bills and how these investments are crucial to supporting our families and growing our economy and securing our future as we continue to debate this package.

Just as importantly, I look forward to hearing from all of our colleagues during this time, as well. I hope that everyone will come to the floor to talk about these bills, what they will mean for your State, for your constituents, and what your priorities here are. And I invite all of our colleagues to talk to me and to talk to Senator Collins if you have amendments and ideas for how we can make these bills better, because Senator Collins and I are working now to clear a managers' package and set up votes.

Our staffs are still working hard on this, and we are happy to work with your teams--all of your teams--so we can pass the strongest bill possible. We have been working closely together from day one to run an open bipartisan process, to get input from all of our colleagues, and to make sure that everyone can make their constituents' voices heard.

We know our work is not done yet, but we are committed to showing the American people that this place can actually work, that Members with different viewpoints can actually come together in a timely, responsible way to get our communities the resources they need and to help people and solve problems, which is why so many of us got into politics in the first place.

The American people are watching. Let's show them we are listening. Let's pass this package and continue to get our job here done.

This summer, we produced a bipartisan roadmap to fund the government with serious bills that can actually be signed into law. I am glad that, here in the Senate, we are moving right ahead with several of these bills now. I urge our colleagues to work with us to get this done.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 2391 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; and I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, will it be in order for me to explain

I withdraw my unanimous consent request.

Madam President, in a few moments, I am going reassert my unanimous consent; but, first, I wanted to tell you why I rise today in our Senate. It has to do with flood insurance.

The National Flood Insurance Program, which is administered by FEMA, is going to expire in 17 days, September 30. About 5 million Americans depend on national flood insurance, as you know. Up until recently, private insurers would not provide flood insurance. The Federal Government, for that reason, decided a number of years ago to implement its own program, and it is administered by FEMA.

The National Flood Insurance Program is far from perfect. I don't want to give the impression that I think that somehow it is a model of efficiency because it is not, especially after its implementation of risk rating 2.0.

Having said that, it is an economic--``it'' meaning the Federal flood insurance program--it is an economic and commercial necessity. It is almost impossible to buy a home in an area that has the potential of flooding--which is everywhere now--without ever being able to get flood insurance.

My bill is a simple bill. It does nothing but extend the Federal flood insurance program, which, again, is about to expire on September 30, in 17 days. All my bill does is extend it, as is, by 1 year through September 30, 2024.

If there is a threat--and there obviously is--the government is going to shut down, I do not want to risk allowing the NFIP to expire during hurricane season, which we happen to be in.

I mentioned 5 million Americans depend on flood insurance. Well, 500,000 of those Americans are in my State of Louisiana. What would happen if we allow the NFIP, the National Flood Insurance Program, to expire? Well, for one thing, the NFIP would be prohibited from issuing new policies during that period of time, which would shut down commerce and the real estate business.

Existing NFIP policies--I don't want to scare anyone. If, for some reason,

the flood insurance program expires, existing policies are still in effect until their expiration date and claims will continue to be paid as long as FEMA has money. However, the Federal requirement that you have to purchase flood insurance under certain circumstances to get a mortgage would be suspended, which means many mortgage companies would not loan money to homeowners.

If we allow the NFIP to expire, the National Flood Insurance Program would not be able to borrow money from Treasury. Their authority to borrow money would be reduced from the current $30 billion to about $1 billion, which is not much money, as you know, Madam President, to recover from a national disaster.

The National Association of Realtors has suggested that during the lapse of the NFIP--about 13 years ago, we allowed it to expire. At that time, just in my State alone, about 1,400 residential home sale closings had to be canceled.

Let me say it again. I know the flood insurance program is not perfect. I will be the first to say that. I will lead the parade. A lot of work needs to be done on it, but the only thing worse than what we have is nothing. It will shut down commerce in terms of real estate in this country. And in 17 days, September 30 of this year, the National Flood Insurance Program expires.

All my bill does is one thing: It extends it 1 year. For that reason, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 2391, which is my bill, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; and I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, I appreciate Senator Lee's remarks.

I know he has concerns, as well he should.

I am sorry. I will start over.

Madam President, I appreciate Senator Lee's remarks. His objection does disappoint me; but I appreciate his remarks, and I share his concern about reforming the Federal replenishment program.

It doesn't look like someone designed it on purpose. It should look like someone designed it on purpose. It should be reformed. There aren't 60 votes right now to reform the program, and we don't have time to do it in the next 17 days. We could, if our majority leader would vacate all other business on the floor and we worked like most Americans work, but you and I both know that is not likely to happen.

As imperfect as the program is, I will be back to reurge this unanimous consent. This is the worst possible time to allow our National Flood Insurance Program to expire for my State, imperfect as it is, because we are right in the middle of hurricane season.

I also want to point out, as I told Senator Lee before, I am certainly willing to discuss with him putting a cap on the amount of insurance offered. And I will tell you why.

A mischaracterization--that is probably the wrong word. A characterization that is irrelevant to my State with respect to flood insurance is as follows: that flood insurance just benefits a lot of multimillionaires who live on the coast and could afford, frankly, to even be uninsured. And that may be true in some States. Certainly, if it is true, I am certainly not denigrating the folks who were successful enough to be able to buy a beach home. My only point is that is not true of Louisiana.

Insurance of 500,000 people who rely on flood insurance in my State are just like you and me. They just get up every day. They go to work. They obey the law. They pay their taxes. They try to save a little bit for retirement, and they try to do the right things by their

kids. They are not millionaires. They are working women and working men. They have to have this insurance. I just wanted to make that point for the record.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I am here and am pleased to join my colleague from the State of New Mexico. I thank him for his leadership on the Ag Appropriations Committee and join him in urging support for our legislation.

It did pass the full Appropriations Committee. I see that our Appropriations chair is here, and I want to thank her for her work as well. But it did pass our full Appropriations Committee unanimously. You know, we like to see that bipartisanship, but I think it says a lot that it came through the full Approps Committee with a unanimous ``do pass'' vote.

I just want to talk a little bit about the bill and how important it is that we are returning to regular order. I think that is incredibly important. Our objective here is not just to pass the bill but to do it through regular order, meaning an open amendment process. I think that is something that our Members have very much wanted, and that is something we are working very hard to achieve.

Like the Senator from New Mexico, I want to thank his staff, Dianne Nellor, Rachel Erlebacher, and Hannah Chauvin, for their work. We appreciate working with them. And, of course, my crew, Morgan Ulmer and Patrick Carroll, who worked very diligently, worked well together to craft the bill. I want to express my appreciation as well to Senator Heinrich.

As he detailed, this bill represents careful consideration of many important programs that are included in the Ag appropriations bill. It reflects a balance of making the right investments in critically important programs while lowering levels in some areas that had seen supplemental increases in the past because, obviously, we were given a 302(b) number that we had to achieve, and that actually reduces spending in some areas. Tough decisions were made dollar for dollar. This bill spends less than 1 percent more than last year, even though, obviously, the cost of inflation has been significantly higher.

Still, we were able to provide the necessary investments in agricultural research programs, for example, to support the continued success of America's farmers, ranchers, and agribusiness. That ag research has made incredible differences in terms of not only disease resistance but also productivity gains for our farmers and ranchers.

We were also able to support efforts to protect our producers from things like Avian influenza, chronic wasting disease, and other diseases that affect our crops and animals as well.

We also provided funding for the Farm Service Agency and Risk Management Agency to ensure that our farmers and ranchers continue to have access to important programs, to disaster assistance, and to crop insurance.

Obviously, with the FSA and the RMA, it is vitally important that they have adequate staffing to work directly with our farmers and ranchers. Agriculture has become like all businesses, more complicated and more challenging, and we need to make sure that assistance is in place for our producers.

We fully fund the Food Safety and Inspection Service to support our Nation's frontline inspectors and maintain progress made in recent years to increase transparency and competition in the meat industry. There is a lot more that we need to do there as well, but we are making progress and need to continue to work on that important issue.

We were able to provide targeted increases to the FDA--the Food and Drug Administration--in order to promote programs that support food safety and address critical drug and device shortages.

Last Congress, there were significant increases for conservation and rural infrastructure programs like broadband coverage. While the USDA is working to get that funding out the door, we were able to make reductions in some of these accounts while still making substantial progress on those things. But, again, it required that in order to make sure that we could achieve the budget number that we were given--like I said, just 1 percent more than last year.

We also rescinded previously appropriated discretionary dollars that have gone unspent in the Department on a multiyear basis and worked very hard to make sure we could find any areas of waste and tried to reduce spending in those areas.

Essentially, what we are doing is what Americans are forced to do every single day, and that is to do more with less, to prioritize, and make sure that they find savings where possible and fund priors.

Essentially, we know there is more to do. We think that this bill, as I stated, coming through the committee unanimously, is a solid piece of work. We are ready for an open amendment process, and I certainly welcome ideas from the entire body.

Again, I want to emphasize the importance of getting back to regular order. This gives us an opportunity to do that. So let's seize the day--as they say, carpe diem. Let's get to work on it, and make sure that we also do the absolute best that we can for our farmers and ranchers.

One point, in closing, that I want to make, and that is this: We have about 60 million people involved in agriculture across this great country. We have a system of family-based small businesses in agriculture. Our farmers and ranchers are largely family-based small businesses, and we can't take that for granted. They produce the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world.

Americans spend less of their budget on food than almost any other developed country, brought to them by farmers and ranchers. So it is critically important that we support them because every American benefits every single day from what our farmers and ranchers do, and we can't take that for granted.

Look at the consolidation we see in so many other industries. Let's make sure that we continue to have that family-based small business network out there, providing our food, fiber, and fuel every single day. That is what this legislation is all about.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today with great respect, affection, and admiration for my friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator from Louisiana. I have always appreciated his dedication to the welfare of his constituents and the prudent management of taxpayer dollars. When it comes to the National Flood Insurance Program, or NFIP, as it is known, I must voice some concerns.

The NFIP, by its very nature and its current structure and the way it has been operating, remains a perfect example of what can happen when good intentions meet imprudent policy.

We find ourselves on the precipice of what is euphemistically called a clean reauthorization. While the term ``clean'' as used here may suggest unerring direction or impurity or transparency, in this context, clean is better understood as ``unchanging'' or even ``unreflective.''

Let's be clear on the facts here. Commerce created the NFIP as a government flood insurance monopoly, one that covers privately owned properties. Yet this government-backed monopoly behemoth sits on more than $26 billion in debt owed to the U.S. Treasury.

My friend and colleague referred, a moment ago, to the ability to cover up to $30 billion of potential liabilities. They have $20 billion in debt because of the way the program has been run. There is no subtly as to why this has happened. The NFIP is offering special below-market rates for insurance in regions and for specific properties that are inherently flood-prone.

Congress is no stranger to the adage of doing the same thing over and over again and, somehow, nonetheless expecting different results. And yet we find ourselves here, yet again, ready to do battle again.

This isn't merely about economics; it is also about evenhanded fairness. The NFIP, as constructed, disproportionately benefits, in many instances, those who least need the assistance. The data speaks clearly to this. Historically--and, certainly, this was the case as of just a few years ago--the median value of an NFIP-insured home has been roughly double that of the average American home.

I have introduced several pieces of legislation trying to reform this program. I introduced several bills in the past proposing some fixes, including one that would propose a particularly meaningful simple change, and that is capping the NFIP insurance eligibility at $1 million. This isn't about penalizing success. Rather, it is a recognition that those fortunate enough to afford homes in the million- dollar-plus range are also most likely very able to secure insurance without a public subsidy and without running the NFIP program even further into debt, on top of the $20 billion that they have already racked up.

So my objection is not about negating Senator Kennedy's genuine concerns and very legitimate points about our citizens; it is about ensuring that we take steps in the right direction as stewards of taxpayer dollars.

With the utmost respect to my friend and colleague, with whom I agree on most things, the NFIP, in its current form, isn't moving us in that direction. It is a broken government subsidy program that has long been in need of some reforms to accompany any reauthorization.

When this has come up in the past--each time it comes up as we are approaching another expiration--I have offered up reforms, year after year. And year after year, I have been told: We will get to that. We will get to that. We will add some of those reforms. You are right, we need to reform the program. We will get to that but not yet.

It is as if echoing the famous words of St. Augusta who, during his conversion to Christianity, reportedly said: Lord, grant me chastity, but not yet.

The time comes when you actually have to do what needs to be done.

So I appreciate the opportunity to share those views and remain committed to working alongside my friend and colleague, Senator Kennedy, to identify and implement solutions that best serve all Americans.

There are a number of solutions. I introduced a number of pieces of legislation over the years, one of which I mentioned a moment ago. There are others. If we can adopt one or more of these reforms, we can get this done.

What I am not willing to do is agree, yet again, with another hollow promise, yet again, that at some unknown point in the future, we will reform the program, as I think everyone acknowledges needs to be done.

On that basis, Madam President, I object.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I appreciate my friend and colleague's words, and, yes, I want to be very clear--under no circumstance did I suggest that this benefits only wealthy people. Quite to the contrary, my whole point was that we can reform this program so that it doesn't have $20 billion in debt at the same time that it has $30 billion in liabilities. That is not a good way to run this, because, he is right, there are a whole lot of people who are not in the wealthy, million- dollar-plus homeowner category. But for those who are, they should not be in the same position because they are not in the same position. So that is why I would be happy to work with my friend and colleague. We can get this done. This one does not have to be difficult. Sure, it takes a lot of time to put a bill on the floor and subject it to a full process.

I am not the only one with concerns about this legislation, but for my own purposes, as far as I am concerned, if we can get agreement on that, I would be happy to let your measure pass if we can incorporate that reform. We can incorporate that reform very easily, do another unanimous consent request, and if no one else objects, I am happy to let that one go with a simple reform. I already have the legislation drafted from previous Congresses. We can get this done.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.