Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Jack Clampit, Jr., who recently passed away on May 7, 2025.

Jack was born on September 26, 1949, in Monroe, LA, and graduated from West Monroe High School in 1966. After graduating high school, he began his own creosote plant before helping establish two more businesses focused on selling copiers and computers. Jack was fortunate to enjoy 48 years of marriage to his loving wife Debbie Frith Clampit, a union that produced two daughters, two grandchildren, and four great- grandchildren.

Jack was known in his community as a reliable friend and a strong leader. He served as vice president of the Ouachita Parish Police Jury for two terms. Along with founding the Bawcomville Redneck Christmas Parade and Crawfish Craze Barrel Race, Jack was also a member of the library board, volunteer committee for the Rivercity Longbeards, and the North Louisiana Economic Partnership.

Jack Clampit, Jr.'s commitment to his community is nothing short of inspiring. His efforts made Ouachita Parish and all of our State a better place. On behalf of the people of Louisiana, I extend my heartfelt condolences to the Clampit family.

Mr. President, I celebrate Louise ``Sammie'' McClelland, who turned 105 years old this month on April 14. She still lives on her own and spends her days reading, swimming, and attending mass. You would hardly guess she is Jefferson Davis Parish's oldest resident.

Her joy and adventurous spirit have not dimmed despite living through some of the most difficult periods in American history. During the Great Depression, Mrs. McClelland helped her family by sewing clothes, gardening, fishing, cooking, and caring for her younger siblings.

Mrs. McClelland later left home to pursue a degree at LSU and, subsequently, an impressive teaching career. She served her community for 35 years as a teacher, educating the next generation of Louisiana's leaders.

Now living in Elton, LA, Mrs. McClelland remains steadfast in her faith and thankful that the Lord continues to bless her with the things and people she needs to live well. Mrs. McClelland's fearlessness and hard work, combined with her deep faith in God, make her a true embodiment of what makes Louisiana so wonderful, and we could all learn from her example.

When asked the secret to her long life, she replied, ``Eat right, follow God's rule, and exercise.'' What great advice.

Madam President, oh my gosh, I wish I didn't have to rise today because I rise to say goodbye but also to honor someone who has been an incredibly important member of our Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee team and, before that, in my personal office team. Amanda Lincoln is leaving Capitol Hill after 15 years of service to the Congress and to our country.

Amanda joined my personal office after she had served as staff director and legislative director for the late Senator Mike Enzi. In my personal office, she was integral to advancing policies to improve the lives of all Americans, spearheading laws that increase access to generic drugs, boost domestic manufacturing of medical products, and enhance forecasting of epidemics. She also was a partner in brainstorming solutions to emerging and vexing policy challenges, like how to finance gene therapies and protect patient privacy.

Now, it was interesting. When we began to work on the bipartisan infrastructure bill, I had a group of six, and there was no one of them that had been tapped as a leader. And there were just alpha males in there, and there was this and there was that. And just organically, Amanda emerged as the leader among that group.

One of the young men who was on that project, with strong personality and strong intellect--and I just kind of wasn't quite sure how that would manage--and he goes: I just got to tell you, Amanda is doing a great job.

I am thinking: Well, how in the heck did that happen that she emerged as the leader among all of these strong possibilities, and there was never any sort of jostling?

It was just her talent, her ability to understand process and direct negotiations that, once more, organically made her the leader.

She never worked before on transportation and energy, and yet transportation and energy became something in which she is expert at.

So although she left my office after that--my personal office--when I became the ranking member on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I was asked: Well, who is going to be your staff director?

And I remembered her ability to lead so well that I said: Let's ask Amanda Lincoln.

Fortunately, she took the job. Since then, I have learned to trust her for consequential decisions that helped us on that committee chart a successful path.

Now, first in the Republican minority and now as Republican chair, we have been able to pass laws enhancing research into childhood cancer and making sure students receive financial aid packages on time to choose the best affordable college option for them. We have passed legislation to address hazing incidents on college campuses, to reform Federal programs that better address Alzheimer's and autism, and to promote access to healthcare in rural areas.

We passed legislation through the committee to strengthen services for American seniors, to improve public health readiness toward the next pandemic, to make sure that healthcare workers could access mental health

and substance use care--if you will, those healthcare workers burned out, stressed out, sometimes to the point of suicide by things such as the COVID pandemic, they now have greater support--to help Americans caring for family members with disabilities and other challenging medical conditions.

Amanda also led oversight efforts, including the recapturing of $375 million of taxpayer funds wrongfully paid.

As in my personal office, Amanda led efforts to develop policy solutions to some of the most pressing issues of our time--personally, I think it is important for our country to address the potential risks and benefits that artificial intelligence pose to society, and to make sure that it is designed, developed, and deployed responsibly--also, to modernize the National Institutes of Health, ensuring we sustain our advantage in biomedical research and that Americans get innovative treatments first; to ensure that gig workers have access to portable benefits, like retirement and healthcare; to modernize HIPAA or the medical privacy framework to ensure it keeps pace with new technologies and that Americans' private health data is properly protected.

Amanda has been on the ground floor of all of these ideas, helping to kick-start debate and to generate solutions that I hope to pass into law as chair of that committee. She also led the committee's efforts to swiftly confirm all of President Trump's Cabinet officials under our jurisdiction and to ensure rapid confirmation for key public health officials, like the FDA Commissioner and the NIH Director.

Occasionally, I would get some phone call: How come these appointees are not advancing?

I would say: That is because we have not received the paperwork.

But once we got the paperwork, we took care of it. And that was Amanda's husbanding of the process.

All that I have described would not have been possible without her leadership and guidance. I just thank her, and I am incredibly indebted for her loyalty, service, and steadfastness.

Now, as you know, Madam President, someone who works here on the Hill--particularly if it is a ``madam,'' particularly if it is a she, particularly if it is a mom, a wife--has not only the responsibilities of being that staffer or that Senator or that Congresswoman, but she has the responsibility, as well, of being that mom and of being that spouse, that partner.

Everybody sacrifices weekends, nights, precious times with family in the service of our Nation. Amanda embraces that--perhaps embraced it too much.

I say, again, that this is bittersweet. Her departure is a loss for my office, but a loss for the institution of the Senate. She will be missed by all. But our loss is the gain of her husband JP and their beautiful girls, Caroline and Amelie.

It has been an incredible pleasure watching Amanda grow personally and professionally. I am proud to call her not only a trusted adviser but a dear friend.

I wish her well. I look forward to seeing her start a new chapter in her professional journey.

Once more, I thank her for her service to this body, the Senate, and to the United States of America.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, what you see depends on where you sit. Last Friday, it was announced that the BRIC Program, or the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities Program, run by FEMA would end, and money which had been allocated would be pulled back from the States which were receiving it.

Now, most families across the country have not heard of the BRIC Program, but if you were to explain what it does, they would say, oftentimes, that they need it. I can tell you folks in Louisiana do.

Louisiana has benefited the most per capita in the BRIC's latest round of funding, and I would argue that this actually saves tax dollars for the rest of the country because the BRIC Program helps prevent against flooding, flooding that may occur after a big rain event or after a hurricane. And in Louisiana and in many parts of our country, this is an inevitable part of life.

But the best way to recover from a flood is to never flood at all. The old saying:

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Another:

A stitch in time saves nine.

The same principle applies to flood resilience and mitigation infrastructure. When we invest in levies and floodwalls, communities are protected when the storm hits, and the Federal Government saves billions in a recovery effort that never has to be done.

If you go down to South Louisiana, for example, you will see homes elevated by the BRIC Program that were not previously elevated. Now that they are elevated, that family is secure should the floodwaters come.

Now, you can say: Wait a second. That is just Louisiana. There is a parish in Louisiana in which the flood control structures prevented 10,000 homes from being flooded in the last hurricane--talk about an ounce of prevention because those programs, those families, they would have received Federal help. Turns out no Federal help was needed because we were able to build resilience. We were able to keep those homes from flooding in the first place. This is the type of work that we need to do. And if we do it, then never is a National Flood Insurance Program claim filed.

The family saves; the taxpayer saves. Investing now saves money down the line.

That is why back in 2018, during President Trump's first term, Congress established the BRIC Program to invest in those flood protections needed to prevent future flooding. And through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, another billion dollars was added to that program. This is because the BRIC Program is an effective tool, the type of tool that my communities in my State and communities elsewhere in the country depend upon.

Now, apparently, though, the BRIC Program is in danger. And it is being endangered, I gather, because of the effort to eliminate government waste. Now, there is a lot of government waste, and I am all for eliminating that waste. If there is fraud, we should eliminate it. If there is waste, we should eliminate it.

But preventing homes from flooding, that if they do flood will cost the Federal taxpayer billions of dollars, that is not waste; that is good planning. That is what we should all be doing in every aspect of our life: planning ahead, planning proactively. The waste is that, if we don't do this program and the inevitable flood occurs, then we have to go in and rescue communities. That is waste because we could have prevented that from happening in the first place by implementing programs such as the BRIC Program.

I would ask FEMA to reconsider the impact of cuts to the BRIC Program and to reconsider canceling the BRIC applications that are already placed.

They should. This is a congressionally authorized piece of legislation--authorized and congressionally appropriated. Congress has said that this program will exist. We passed BRIC into law. We provided funds for it. To do anything other than to use that money to protect families from flooding, to protect the Federal taxpayer from having to put out billions to rescue communities which have flooded, is to thwart the will of Congress. And that is why Congress passed it in the first Trump term, and that is why President Trump supported it. It improves efficiency, not decreases it.

I can tell you, people in South Louisiana--whether it is Terrebonne, Lafourche, Ascension Parishes, and places you wouldn't expect to flood like Livingston Parish--that overwhelmingly--that supported President Trump 95 percent of the time, they would overwhelmingly support this sort of flood mitigation.

Here are some examples of the money that is already going out: Roughly, $40 million to the city of Central; $36 million to Ascension Parish. In Central, they were trying to reduce flooding after the great floods of 2016 in Louisiana, trying to keep that from happening again.

The $36 million to Ascension Parish is to fortify electrical infrastructure. Hurricane comes along; electricity goes out. Of course, no electricity, the whole community is incapacitated.

Twenty million dollars to Lafourche Parish to strengthen 16 miles of power lines; $10 million to the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana to provide evacuation routes during flooding. Evacuation routes during flooding, that is something that we should make sure we are building so that you don't have to helicopter people out or you don't have to get them out by boat.

So these are examples of BRIC Programs that are a stitch in time that will save nine.

Now, of course, it is important to my State. I will point out that Louisiana was the third largest recipient of BRIC Program funding recently and the largest on a per capita base. And without BRIC funding, none of these projects would happen--whether it is East Baton Rouge Parish, Ascension Parish, Lafourche, or the Coushatta Tribe.

Lafourche Parish President Archie Chaisson had a $25 million application for grid-hardening so that the people of Lafourche would be able to get back on their feet quicker after a hurricane. I can tell you, I went down to Lafourche Parish after the last hurricane, and all the power poles had just toppled over. It is almost as if you were playing dominoes. They weren't touching, but they all toppled just like that. And there were crews from around the country that had been-- electrical crews that had been mobilized to come and reinstall those.

If you hardened the grid, that doesn't happen. If you harden the grid, those tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars spent to get those electricity poles back up does not have to be spent. This money is an investment in a more resilient future that doesn't require the investment of private and public capital to restart communities. This is not waste.

In fact, if you went to Archie Chaisson's parish, I can tell you, those folks would tell you they are against government waste. They would also tell you that this is not waste. This is something which will save their homes, save lives, and save communities.

Now, we can ask ourselves if FEMA were to move forward with the plan to cut BRIC, what would be the alternative? Flooding costs up to almost $500 billion in damage every year throughout the United States, not just Louisiana. Again, $500 billion in damage that we have to pay after the fact versus investing a few million now to prevent.

Now, the darker the color, the more the recent flooding. So you can say, although I have been speaking about Louisiana, you can see that, across our Nation, floods have been destroying homes and neighborhoods; downing power lines; harming businesses; in some cases, taking lives.

Just since the start of 2025, at least eight Americans in these four States in dark red have died as a result of storms hitting their communities. In the last 3 months, 37 States have experienced flooding.

These are the States that are in red. It goes all the way from Maine to Minnesota, to Michigan, to Montana--you don't think of Montana being a flood State--Idaho. All of these States in red have had flooding in the last 3 months.

And you see, it is not just the coastline in which there is a coastal surge like Louisiana or Florida. It is also what is called riverine. ``Riverine'' meaning you have a valley, a river down the middle, the river rises, and people on the lower part of that valley--I think that would be the situation in Kentucky--are going to flood.

These are all places that could benefit from a resiliency program, from a BRIC Program. We know it works. We know it saves money.

And just to bring this home to my State, this is Livingston Parish, LA, just after the great flood of 2016. Look at that. These are homes in areas that had never flooded before. And in some incredible, once- in-500-years flood event, they were all flooded. Livingston Parish, 2016--we call it the Great Flood. It affected not just this parish but all those in what we call the capital region--Tangipahoa Parish, going up to Monroe, LA--it was almost a statewide event.

Now, if we built resiliency, this doesn't happen. If you look at this, can you image the Federal response?

They were so honored then-Presidential candidate Donald Trump came down and spent time in Livingston Parish after this flood to call attention to it because he felt as if President Obama was not paying attention. President Trump came with Vice President nominee Pence, spent time there, brought hope to the people, and that is when, in 2018--I am sure part of his motivation was to sign into law what has ultimately become the BRIC Program.

These people testify with their flooding how lives are changed when you don't have resiliency.

I just want to say one more thing because I would talk to these people. I am privileged to represent them. Each of these homes has a story. There was a wedding dress that a mother had, saving for her daughter, that was ruined in a flood. There were wedding pictures from a grandparent, parents, and daughters--multigeneration--and an album to save for generations totally lost in a flood. There were, in this flood, neighbors who went out and died, not recognizing the place they were stepping wasn't the side of a road but rather a ditch, and they went down, got swept away in this flood. I can go through each house and imagine a story that could have been prevented if there had been resiliency built into this community before this flood.

The purpose of the BRIC grants is to build that resiliency so that we don't have stories to tell which are tragic or sad but rather stories where people continue on with their life as if--well, as if the flood never occurred.

Local leaders advocating implementing using these dollars are advocating for the people they represent. So am I. Right now, representing those people calls for me to ask that any effort to stop BRIC grant funding is halted, that the will of Congress, that the law that Congress passed, that the funding Congress put into the program, that be honored--by law, it should be honored--and that the money which is out there stays there and the applications which have been placed be accepted, processed, and fulfilled.

If rules need to be changed because the Biden administration did things which are silly to have done, then change those rules. But to end a program--to end a program--which has the ability to prevent this sort of disaster, not just in my State but across the Nation, we should not end that program. To do so is to inflict harm both upon the rule of law and upon these communities.

Let's keep BRIC in place.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, our country has had some pretty severe economic challenges as of late. I am not talking about the recent stock market losses; although those are quite important for someone with a 401(k). I am talking about how real Americans, average Americans, feel as if the American dream of homeownership, of buying a new car or truck, of buying their child a car, or affording a student loan is just slipping out of their grasp. We saw this fear during the Biden administration when inflation was so high that the Federal Reserve increased interest rates. As these interest rates rose, so did consumer interest rates on all sorts of things, directly impacting the ability of a family to realize the American dream.

This speech is about how we preserve that ability of Americans to achieve that dream and how what we are doing today--tonight, in this Congress--directly impacts that.

Now, it may seem pretty distant to someone who is watching from home, but it does directly impact that. How much money the Federal Government borrows, how much this budget resolution leads to increased indebtedness sounds abstract, but it impacts your ability to buy that home, to buy that car, to attend that school.

Some of the process discussions that normally wouldn't matter to you if you are outside of Congress are actually extremely important to this discussion as to how much we are going to borrow and how much we are going to enable Americans in Louisiana--the State I am privileged to represent--and elsewhere achieve their dream.

Let me explain.

As our country borrows more money--so we pass something, and our debt explodes, and as our country has to borrow money to pay for that debt, it begins to compete with businesses, with individuals, with families as they also go out and try and borrow money. Now, the Federal Government is always going to get the first amount, and it is going to be the others who have to pay more to compete. Paying more means you pay more for your mortgage; you pay more for your car note; you pay more for your student loan interest rate.

The only way to keep this from happening is for the Federal Government to live within its means. I think the inflation over the last 4 years is one of the principal reasons the American people tossed Joe Biden out and put Donald Trump back into the White House. The Biden administration did not live within its means. It borrowed a lot of money and drove up interest rates. The American people couldn't afford that which they expected to be able to buy. They voted for change.

Now, President Trump understands this. When he spoke to Congress last month, he spoke of the renewal of the American dream. In that speech about renewing the American dream, he spoke about having a balanced budget. He understands; he desires; he sees the connection between living within our means and making it good for fellow Americans.

By the way, I agree with him. I agree that balancing the Federal budget is key to preserving that dream.

So why is this important now? Our country, right now--not tomorrow, right now--is $36 trillion in debt--36 trillion with a ``t.'' And if we do nothing, if all we do is status quo, continue on the wrong path, it is estimated we will add $21 trillion to that indebtedness over the next 10 years.

What about today? We are going to vote on the budget resolution tonight. If we vote on that budget resolution and it leads to a reconciliation bill which is not paid for, we will add another $5 to $11 trillion on top of that $36 trillion, plus $21 trillion. We could end up with $65 to almost $70 trillion of indebtedness 10 years from now if we don't do that right.

I am a doctor. I am going to borrow a term from medicine. I am going to adapt it, if you will. That would be congressional malpractice. We do not want to be guilty of congressional malpractice.

At some point, the problem begins to build upon itself. Currently, a fifth of tax revenue is used to pay interest on the debt. Twenty percent of all the money the Federal Government gets is right now being used to pay interest on the debt. That is more than we spend on national defense.

I am going to repeat that one. Right now, we are paying more--paying back people who lent us money--than we are paying to protect our country and to pay the troops who are doing so.

There is a historian, Niall Ferguson, who says that, when a country is spending more on debt service than on defending itself, that is the mark of a country in decline.

The current Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, made a similar point in a FOX News op-ed. He wrote that ``America's next security crisis is lurking in our pocketbooks''; that ``our escalating debt crisis hurts national security in three key ways: it diminishes our financial `surge capacity,' it robs

our private sector of capital for productive investment, and it imperils America preeminent role in international financial markets.''

Scott Bessent is now Secretary Bessent, and he is right. The debt is a threat to our national security and to the economic security of the American family.

By the way, families know this. You might be in Caddo Parish, LA; you might be in Covington, LA. But they have learned to live within their means, and we should learn something from those Louisiana families.

Let's discuss the budget resolution before us. To be sure, this resolution only sets up a discussion of a reconciliation bill, and the reconciliation bill is where we actually establish how much is spent and where it should be spent. Nevertheless, this budget resolution points in a direction and establishes certain parameters.

At this point, I am going to discuss a little bit about process. There has been a lot of debate in Washington about using current policy versus current law as baseline in this budget resolution. Current policy has never been used as baseline involving this much money and in a reconciliation bill.

I am going to show a chart here. In this chart--these are the years over here. This is 2025 going all the way out to 2055. And this is how much our debt is as a percent of our tax revenue. You can see that, if this is what the Congressional Budget Office says is our current trajectory, that, in 2055, we will have a debt-to-GDP ratio of about 156 percent; that, under what we are looking at, could increase that to 211 to 230 percent.

So if this is the trajectory we are on, which is not great, but if all we do is what we are doing today, without any effort to offset it, we would increase this 210 to 230 percent.

Now, somewhere around 174 percent, the economists say we are in trouble. To borrow a gastroenterological term--I am a gastroenterologist--we are in deep doo-doo. And then that is what we have to worry about.

I have discussed this extensively with my Senate colleagues. I am pleased to say there is a commitment from President Trump and the White House to work with Senators to go through the budget line by line to see where there could be savings.

The White House and Congress have committed to working together to decrease the regulatory hassle that keeps a business from starting a new venture, to create more jobs, to hire more people, to give them better salaries. Let's cut that redtape and allow those businesses and those workers to achieve their potential. In doing so, it increases revenue. When people are making more money, they pay more taxes.

Clearly, the President is working hard now to make the government work more efficiently--again, which saves us money. I have been assured that there is a commitment in other ways to pay for the eventual reconciliation bill.

Now, I am not saying that I think that it is better that we use current policy as baseline. It has never been done before in a study like this. I think it establishes a dangerous precedent. It might be within the rules to do so, but it doesn't mean it is wise to do so.

As a conservative, I know sometimes that even if you can open Pandora's box, it is better not to. Put differently, just because you can, doesn't mean you should. But it appears we are going to do that.

Also, using current policy as baseline should not suggest to us that the current Tax Code is perfect. I would say far from it.

According to publicly available information, Jeff Bezos--the second richest man in the world--got a child tax credit several years ago. Tax credits for children are supposed to go to middle income and lower income families, not to the second richest man in the world. I hope, as we go through this, we can modify that. Let the dollars go where they are needed, not to someone who is obviously wealthier than any of us put together.

All that said, this vote is not taking place in a vacuum. It is taking place when the stock market has had two successive days of greater than a 1,500-point decline. This kind of crash in the stock market creates uncertainty, which makes companies less likely to invest, which makes it less likely that new jobs will be created. And creating new, good-paying jobs is essential to that individual, that family enjoying the American dream.

Upon consideration and given the commitment from leadership, I would say that not passing this budget resolution could increase the uncertainty in the economy, and that is something I do not wish to do. And given the commitment from leadership to pay for this bill by a variety of mechanisms, whether it is from within the reconciliation vehicle or outside of that process, and, once more, the need to reestablish confidence among those creating jobs, I will vote for this budget resolution.

As we move on from this budget resolution to the reconciliation bill, I will look to make sure that we are truly paying for it and addressing the national debt. To that end, let me kind of mention something as an aside--no, not as an aside, as directly impacting this conversation.

I encourage the use of America's abundance as a way to increase the possibility of Americans achieving the American dream and as a way to also help pay for the government we now have.

One example, I applaud President Trump for advocating greater exploration of oil and gas on Federal lands. This creates great paying jobs, it is a tax base for communities, and it generates significant revenue for the Federal Government, not by raising taxes, and it doesn't cut benefits, but by exploiting, if you will, in a positive way, the resources we have to produce that which is essential to live in a modern life.

I have also proposed in other settings other solutions that can address our Nation's indebtedness without raising taxes or cutting benefits. Again, I have spoken to these in the past. I will speak to them in the future.

I want America to be great for all Americans; that we can all live to the limits of our God-given gifts. Creating opportunity is part of this. My hope, my expectation, is that through this process we are currently in we will create more opportunity for every American to express his or her God-given gifts and to achieve the American dream.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this is a one-size-fits-all inflationary amendment. Increasing the wage by more than 230 percent even over 5 years will destroy jobs, impacting rural areas and low-margin small businesses that cannot afford such an increase. A law mandating a higher minimum wage doesn't mean much to a worker who loses his or her job because of this.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 2126

Mr. President, 74,000 people died of fentanyl and fentanyl analogs in 2023. Everyone in this Chamber and everyone watching from home knows of someone who has died of a fentanyl overdose. If you watched the Super Bowl, 74,000 is more people than were in the New Orleans Superdome.

Now, they didn't just occur in a border State or in my State or in the Presiding Officer's State; they occurred across the country. Every State is a border State when it comes to fentanyl flooding our country. Everyone has felt the effect of the 50,000 pounds of fentanyl that has poured across the open southern border or through the mail over the last couple of years. Fifty thousand pounds is enough to produce over 2 billion lethal doses--enough to kill everyone in the country six times over.

I was just told by a friend about the DEA Museum just outside of Washington, DC. It has a new exhibit, the ``Faces of Fentanyl.'' You see walls covered with thousands of photographs of Americans--many of them young--who have died from an overdose. When you see the pictures on these walls, you can't see them, but you know the presence of parents, brothers, sisters, friends, cousins, aunts, and uncles who were devastated when that person on the wall died, when they heard the news that their loved one had bought a pill online or from somebody they happened to know. Perhaps they thought it was something else or perhaps they didn't know the potency. Nonetheless, when they took it, they died.

The pain of this for so many people is why I urge my colleagues to join me in passing the HALT Fentanyl Act--to help law enforcement stop the criminals who are poisoning our fellow Americans.

What does the HALT Fentanyl Act do? It makes permanent the schedule I classification of fentanyl and fentanyl analogs. What is a fentanyl analog? I am a doctor, so I am going to speak a little bit like a doctor. An analog is fentanyl, which is illegal except they change it just enough so that, when they change it, technically, it would not be illegal. Yes, it looks like fentanyl; it addicts like fentanyl; it can kill like fentanyl. Yet, because of a minor modification, it is not actually fentanyl, but it still has the same terrible, addictive, deadly effect of the actual thing. It still has the ability to take our loved ones from us.

So how do we stop that? We say that whether it was fentanyl or a fentanyl analog, it is banned and that if you are illegally in possession of this or if you are selling it to other people, then law enforcement has the right to arrest you.

This bill makes the schedule I classification--schedule I, meaning it is illegal to have--permanent.

Aside from closing the loophole that criminals use to skirt around the law, we also strengthen the penalty for those who possess the fentanyl analog and, again, make it easier for law enforcement to prosecute.

This isn't controversial; this is bipartisan. The need is there. We have been doing this on a temporary basis, but now we are going to make it permanent. Law enforcement will keep the most vital tool they have to hold fentanyl dealers accountable and to go after criminals.

The bill also makes it easier to research fentanyl analogs to determine if they actually have a medical use. It is possible that one of these analogs is better than the real thing, and fentanyl does have, when prescribed by a physician appropriately, a valid medical use, so maybe one of these analogs is useful. We allow for research into that. At the same time, we give law enforcement the ability to prosecute if it is used for things such as to create an addiction.

President Trump said he would sign this if we passed it. We are working--I am working--to get this bill to his desk.

I would like to thank my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, the Judiciary Committee chairman, for moving this bill through his committee so quickly and thank the majority leader for bringing this bill up for a vote. I also want to thank my colleague from Wisconsin, Ron Johnson, for his work on this issue. I also thank Martin Heinrich from New Mexico, who has really cared about this issue, and Senator Heinrich has pushed this on a bipartisan basis.

The longer we wait, the more it emboldens drug cartels, people in China who either send supplies to Mexico or mail the fentanyl itself through the mail, and other criminals who look to exploit our communities.

We can take a concrete step in fighting the opioid crisis with the HALT Fentanyl Act. Republicans are united. This is a bipartisan bill. The country is united. Let's bring that 74,000 fentanyl death toll down to zero.

I will never yield in this fight, but for now, I do yield the floor.

Mr. President, this is a theme I have been speaking of which affects States across the Nation, which is the National Flood Insurance Program and the threat that it might lapse and the inability of families to be able to afford.

Why are flood insurance premiums so high, you might ask? Flood insurance premiums have skyrocketed across the country due to FEMA's new risk assessment system, Risk Rating 2.0. At the heart of the problem of Risk Rating 2.0 is that with much higher premiums, people will quickly be unable to afford coverage and just drop their policies.

It is well-known in the insurance actuarial world that when you increase a policy by a certain percent, there is going to be another percent of people who just drop their coverage. That means that the pool of policyholders shrinks, and the program enters into what is called an actuarial death spiral, which is to say the risk, instead of being spread out over many, is concentrated in increasingly fewer people, driving up their premiums even that much more; therefore, more people drop.

If we do nothing, the National Flood Insurance Program will collapse. This is important. The National Flood Insurance Program covers 4.7 million American homes across the country. Now, clearly, I am concerned about Louisiana, as that is my State, but it is not just Louisiana or even just a coastal issue. Look at a map of those affected. The States in dark yellow have been hit the hardest by flooding. They have all had at least $1 billion in claims from the National Flood Insurance Program. Missouri--inland--has had over $1 billion in claims from the National Flood Insurance Program, as has my home State of Louisiana. But just go around, and you can see California and Hawaii--all with this issue. Now, 44 States have had at least $50 million worth of claims, and those would be in the kind of mustard color.

So here you see again inland States--not coastal but inland--having problems with flooding. When we say a ``problem with flooding,'' we mean there is a family that has lost their possessions. They have lost their home, and now, they don't know where to go. That is what we mean by a ``problem with flooding.''

My message to my colleagues representing States that rely on the National Flood Insurance Program is, let's find a way forward. One day, the National Flood Insurance Program will lapse if we fail to act.

Now, we are going to, with this CR, do a temporary--temporary-- extension. I would ask that we actually have a reauthorization and a reform of the National Flood Insurance Program before it is too late.

By the way, a short-term extension is better than nothing. I thank Speaker Johnson in the House for including a short-term extension. If that is the only option, let's take that option. However, I am working on a longer reauthorization so that the National Flood Insurance Program is not thrown into a legal purgatory every year or even sometimes multiple times a year.

Today, I have introduced a bill to fully reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program for this year and for next year. There are 4.7 million homeowners across the country who deserve that little bit of certainty, and it does not seem like it is asking too much.

Imagine if your homeowners or life insurance was subject to lapsing every year if Congress couldn't get their act together. Well, for families living in communities with the NFIP as the only option for flood insurance, this would be unsettling.

In the past 10 years, Congress has passed 32 short-term National Flood Insurance Program extensions. The vote we are taking tomorrow will be the 33rd short-term extension--American families holding their breath 33 times. Families need stability. Businesses need stability. This is the absence of stability. This is a yin and a yang. Congress needs to reauthorize this for an extended period of time.

Let's make flood insurance affordable again. I will keep working to do that. I am pleased that the Flood Insurance Program will survive the weekend, but we need to make it survive long term.

Mr. President, this is a theme I have been speaking of which affects States across the Nation, which is the National Flood Insurance Program and the threat that it might lapse and the inability of families to be able to afford.

Why are flood insurance premiums so high, you might ask? Flood insurance premiums have skyrocketed across the country due to FEMA's new risk assessment system, Risk Rating 2.0. At the heart of the problem of Risk Rating 2.0 is that with much higher premiums, people will quickly be unable to afford coverage and just drop their policies.

It is well-known in the insurance actuarial world that when you increase a policy by a certain percent, there is going to be another percent of people who just drop their coverage. That means that the pool of policyholders shrinks, and the program enters into what is called an actuarial death spiral, which is to say the risk, instead of being spread out over many, is concentrated in increasingly fewer people, driving up their premiums even that much more; therefore, more people drop.

If we do nothing, the National Flood Insurance Program will collapse. This is important. The National Flood Insurance Program covers 4.7 million American homes across the country. Now, clearly, I am concerned about Louisiana, as that is my State, but it is not just Louisiana or even just a coastal issue. Look at a map of those affected. The States in dark yellow have been hit the hardest by flooding. They have all had at least $1 billion in claims from the National Flood Insurance Program. Missouri--inland--has had over $1 billion in claims from the National Flood Insurance Program, as has my home State of Louisiana. But just go around, and you can see California and Hawaii--all with this issue. Now, 44 States have had at least $50 million worth of claims, and those would be in the kind of mustard color.

So here you see again inland States--not coastal but inland--having problems with flooding. When we say a ``problem with flooding,'' we mean there is a family that has lost their possessions. They have lost their home, and now, they don't know where to go. That is what we mean by a ``problem with flooding.''

My message to my colleagues representing States that rely on the National Flood Insurance Program is, let's find a way forward. One day, the National Flood Insurance Program will lapse if we fail to act.

Now, we are going to, with this CR, do a temporary--temporary-- extension. I would ask that we actually have a reauthorization and a reform of the National Flood Insurance Program before it is too late.

By the way, a short-term extension is better than nothing. I thank Speaker Johnson in the House for including a short-term extension. If that is the only option, let's take that option. However, I am working on a longer reauthorization so that the National Flood Insurance Program is not thrown into a legal purgatory every year or even sometimes multiple times a year.

Today, I have introduced a bill to fully reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program for this year and for next year. There are 4.7 million homeowners across the country who deserve that little bit of certainty, and it does not seem like it is asking too much.

Imagine if your homeowners or life insurance was subject to lapsing every year if Congress couldn't get their act together. Well, for families living in communities with the NFIP as the only option for flood insurance, this would be unsettling.

In the past 10 years, Congress has passed 32 short-term National Flood Insurance Program extensions. The vote we are taking tomorrow will be the 33rd short-term extension--American families holding their breath 33 times. Families need stability. Businesses need stability. This is the absence of stability. This is a yin and a yang. Congress needs to reauthorize this for an extended period of time.

Let's make flood insurance affordable again. I will keep working to do that. I am pleased that the Flood Insurance Program will survive the weekend, but we need to make it survive long term.

Mr. President, I rise to acknowledge evangelist Jimmy Swaggart, who is celebrating his 90th birthday this Saturday.

Reverend Swaggart was born in Ferriday, LA, on March 15, 1935, into a musically talented family. His cousins include rock and roll pioneer Jerry Lee ``The Killer'' Lewis and country music singer Mickey Gilley. Reverend Swaggart is also musically gifted. However, instead of becoming an entertainer, he answered the call to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Reverend Swaggart has devoted his life to advancing Christ's ministry and kingdom. He began full-time ministry in 1955. Over the next seven decades, Reverend Swaggart used all forms of mass communication to spread the word of God around the world. Reverend Swaggart launched the SonLife Broadcasting Network which generates more than 3,000 hours of live programming each year with an audience reach capability of 2 billion people. Additionally, Reverend Swaggart has authored more than 60 books and thousands of pages of Bible commentary. Reverend Swaggart has also built schools, founded churches, and has conducted revivals around the world.

Reverend Swaggart's commitment to Christ is nothing short of inspiring. On behalf of the people of Louisiana and all Americans, I extend my heartfelt thanks to Reverand Swaggart for his selfless service. May his birthday celebration be filled with love, joy, and appreciation.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, for years, one more time, Congress has refused to make a definitive, permanent decision. It has failed to make schedule I classification of fentanyl- related substances permanent.

Law enforcement needs permanence. It needs a definitive change to combat the opioid crisis and go after the criminals flooding communities with deadly drugs.

Congress's inaction only emboldens China, drug cartels, and other criminals who exploit our communities, and that should not happen.

We need a lasting solution. There is no reason to do any temporary extension. We have the bipartisan votes to make the schedule I classification permanent.

This Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee, with the support of Judiciary Chairman Grassley and Senator Heinrich, is marking up the Halt All Lethal Trafficking of Fentanyl Act, or the HALT Fentanyl Act. This legislation permanently classifies fentanyl-related substances as schedule I controlled substances.

Let's be clear. The HALT Fentanyl Act is not controversial. For two consecutive Congresses, it passed the House of Representatives with strong bipartisan support. There are enough votes to pass HALT in the Judiciary Committee and on the Senate floor this Congress. My Democratic colleague's legislation delays that permanency. Schedule I classification will once more be in jeopardy when the next deadline comes around. Law enforcement cannot continue to have this uncertainty.

That is why, after my objection, I will ask unanimous consent to pass the HALT Fentanyl Act. This legislation has already passed the House of Representatives and has bipartisan support in the Senate. I hope all my Democratic colleagues will join in supporting the bill.

We have a responsibility to provide law enforcement the tools they need to address the scourge of deadly drugs in our communities. Failure to act puts Americans in harm's way.

For those reasons, I object.

Mr. President, because of my objection, I ask unanimous consent to pass the HALT Fentanyl Act to permanently classify fentanyl- related substances as schedule I controlled substances. The bill also removes barriers that impede the ability of researchers to conduct studies on these substances.

The HALT Fentanyl Act has already passed the House of Representatives with overwhelming bipartisan support. It has support from Democrat and Republican Senators now.

This is the bill the Senate should be voting on today, not just a temporary extension that creates greater uncertainty in our effort to address the opioid crisis but, again, one which establishes permanence, something which gives certainty to law enforcement to combat this, as I said earlier, scourge of illegal fentanyl.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 27 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. 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

Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's passion.

Everybody watching me right now knows somebody who has died from a fentanyl overdose. You cannot minimize the impact of this on everyday families, but what is presented to us is a false choice and I would say the wrong choice.

I think my colleague is saying, unless we pass his amendment to put this temporarily on hold--and, once more, refuse to make a decision to make this permanent--that somehow things will not get better.

Let me repeat what I said in my earlier remarks: This Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee, with the support of Judiciary Chairman Grassley, a Republican, and Senator Heinrich, a Democrat, is marking up the Halt All Lethal Trafficking of Fentanyl Act, or the HALT Fentanyl Act. This Thursday is when it is going to be marked up.

Now, this is a moving piece of legislation. If you want to do something more than this legislation does, you should have 2 months ago started working with that committee. Don't stop now. Call people tonight, and say: Listen. On Thursday, we are going to be marking this up. Will you consider my amendment? Make the case that was so impassionately given that we have got to do more than what we are doing.

I agree. So the way to do it--because this has not yet been marked up this

can still be modified. By the way, this is not the end of what we are going to do to address the issue of fentanyl. It does allow law enforcement to say: Listen, this isn't temporary. We now can kind of go to the bank, if you will. This is the law going forward. But if my esteemed colleague wants to make this more than it is now, that is the opportunity on Thursday. The process matters. Going Thursday, on a bipartisan basis and getting that buy-in, sitting down with a Senator who is undecided and working through it with that Senator and getting him or getting her to a yes, is part of that process. Delaying once more--delaying once more the permanence? Then we will say a year from now, once more, we will make it temporary, and we will make it temporary.

There is something about deadlines. Deadlines sharpen a man's mind. If there is a deadline Thursday to get this on and then, when it is brought to the floor, there is a deadline to amend it on the floor, now is the time to act, but now is not the time to delay.

I appreciate my colleague's passion, and I look forward to working with him. Neither of us ever wants to go to a family member, to a friend, to a fellow American and have to comfort them over the issue of another death from opioids. I just think that this is an important step and that, if there is more to be added, then let's add it, but let's not complain because it hasn't already been added.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to the following member of my staff: Jack K. Uhl for today.

Mr. President, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 119th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying rules for the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I would like to make a statement regarding my vote in committee on behalf of Robert F. Kennedy to be the Secretary of HHS.

First, I thank everyone who has contacted me over the last few days. Almost all have been respectful and seek the best for our country. I have been contacted by text, by phone, and by email. If I didn't respond to anyone, it was not to be rude; it is just that I was

getting hundreds of messages a day personally and thousands through the office, and I just physically could not.

Believe it or not, of these hundreds of people calling me and contacting me however they did, many of them disagree with each other diametrically. Three dimensionally, they disagreed. But the unifying factor is that they all desire the best for our country, even though they differ from each other so much. And maybe that kind of frames my feelings about this nomination.

For context, before entering politics, before ever thinking about running for political office, I practiced medicine for 30 years in a public hospital for the uninsured, caring for those who otherwise would not have been able to afford the access to the care that I provided them.

After seeing patients die from vaccine-preventable diseases, I dedicated much of my time to vaccine research and immunization programs, personally witnessing the safety monitoring and the effectiveness of immunization. Put simply, vaccines save lives.

This is the context that informed me when considering RFK as the nominee to be Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

It was a decision I studied exhaustively and I took very seriously. And as I said I would, I spoke with Mr. Kennedy not once but multiple times over the weekend, including this morning. We had in-depth conversations about the medical literature and about the science behind the safety of vaccines. He referred me to studies and to people. I reviewed them and spoke to those whom he mentioned I should speak to.

The most notable opponents of Mr. Kennedy were pediatricians on the frontlines of our children's health who regularly have to combat misinformation, combating vaccine skepticism with correct information-- correct information that comes from their education, their training, and experience as physicians. They are aware of the falling vaccine rates and the inevitability of increasing hospitalizations and deaths of children from vaccine-preventable diseases. They are aware that children are now contracting diseases that they would not have contracted if the child was vaccinated.

I heard from others impassioned about the need to address chemicals in our food and a belief that we are victims of large impersonal forces maximizing profits while sacrificing their health. And there is evidence for that. Although, food safety is principally a USDA concern, I strongly agree that this is an issue society must address.

Other RFK supporters are concerned regarding environmental risks. They fear these risks are being ignored by authorities. Mr. Kennedy's history of environmental activism motivates their support. I pointed out that the Environmental Protection Agency monitors this, not the Department of Health and Human Services. But they still feel that he can make a difference.

So as I looked how to resolve this, I returned to where I began. Would it be possible to have Mr. Kennedy collaborate in helping public health agencies re-earn the trust of the American people?

Regarding vaccines, Mr. Kennedy has been insistent that he just wants good science and to ensure safety. But on this topic, the science is good. The science is credible. Vaccines save lives. They are safe. They do not cause autism. There are multiple studies that show this. They are a crucial part of our Nation's public health response.

But as someone who has discussed immunization with thousands of people, I do recognize that many mothers need reassurance that the vaccine their child is receiving is necessary, effective, and most of all, safe.

While I am aligned with Mr. Kennedy as regards ultraprocessed food, reforming NIH, and taking on chronic disease, once more, it leaves vaccines.

Mr. Kennedy and the administration reached out seeking to reassure me regarding their commitment to protecting the public health benefit of vaccination. To this end, Mr. Kennedy and the administration committed that he and I would have an unprecedentedly close collaborative working relationship if he is confirmed. We will meet or speak multiple times a month. This collaboration will allow us to work well together and, therefore, to be more effective.

Mr. Kennedy has asked for my input into hiring decisions at HHS beyond Senate-confirmed positions. This aspect of the collaboration will allow us to represent all sides of those folks who were contacting me over this past weekend.

He has also committed that he would work within current vaccine approval and safety monitoring systems and not establish parallel systems.

If confirmed, he will maintain the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations without changes. CDC will not remove statements on their website pointing out that vaccines do not cause autism.

Mr. Kennedy and the administration also committed that this administration will not use the subversive techniques used under the Biden administration, like sue and settle, to change policies enacted by Congress without first going through Congress.

Mr. Kennedy and the administration committed to a strong role of Congress. Aside from he and I meeting regularly, he will come before the HELP Committee on a quarterly basis, if requested. He committed that the HELP Committee chair, whether it is me or someone else, may choose a representative on any board or commission formed to review vaccine safety.

If he is confirmed, HHS will provide a 30-day notice to the HELP Committee if the Agency seeks to make changes to any of our Federal vaccine safety monitoring programs, and the HELP Committee will have the option to call a hearing to further review.

These commitments, and my expectation that we could have a great working relationship to make America healthy again, is the basis of my support. He will be the Secretary, but I believe he will also be a partner in working for this end.

If Mr. Kennedy is confirmed, I will use my authority as chairman of the Senate committee with oversight of HHS to rebuff any attempts to remove the public's access to lifesaving vaccines without ironclad, causational, scientific evidence that can be accepted and defended before the mainstream scientific community and before Congress.

I will watch carefully for any effort to wrongfully sow public fear about vaccines through confusing references of coincidence and anecdote. But my support is built on assurances that this will not have to be a concern and that he and I could work together to build an agenda to make America healthy again.

We need a leader at HHS who will guide President Trump's agenda to make America healthy again.

Based on Mr. Kennedy's assurances on vaccines and his platform to positively influence Americans' health, it is my consideration that he will get this done.

As I said, it has been a long and tense process. But I have assessed it, as I would assess a patient as a physician. Ultimately restoring trust in our public health institution is too important, and I think Mr. Kennedy can help get that done.

As chairman of the Senate committee with oversight authority of his position, I will do my best to make sure that that is what we accomplish.

I want Mr. Kennedy to succeed in making America healthy again. His success will be tied to the health of our Nation. He has the opportunity to address the most pertinent issues affecting Americans' health.

We also need to reform institutions like the FDA and NIH, and those, as already has been indicated, are my priorities as chairman of the HELP Committee. I look forward to his support in accomplishing this. If confirmed, I look forward to working together with Mr. Kennedy to achieve President Trump's mission of improving the health of all Americans.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Anthony Mitchell who is celebrating the reconstruction of his home with the help of both the New Orleans Area Habitat for Humanity and Thrivent after Hurricane Ida.

Mr. Mitchell is a Louisiana native from the city of New Orleans. He served in the Navy during the Vietnam war, and after leaving military service, Mr. Mitchell returned to New Orleans to work as a handyman and carpenter. In 2021, Hurricane Ida rendered his home inhabitable, which forced Mr. Mitchell to live in his car.

Thrivent and Habitant for Humanity partnered to assist with disaster relief efforts. Habitat for Humanity provided the materials and the labor needed to rebuild Mr. Mitchell's home and Thrivent supplied the necessary funding. The volunteers made sure that the new home would be flood resilient.

On November 11, 2024, these charities began Super Build, a construction project to rebuild Mr. Mitchell's house before Super Bowl LIX. The Super Build will be completed tomorrow, on February 4, 2025, just in time for Mr. Mitchell to watch the championship game in his own home.

The volunteers who devoted their time and efforts towards the reconstruction of Mr. Mitchell's home are nothing short of inspiring. I applaud these individuals for their selfless service towards Mr. Mitchell and dedication towards the New Orleans community.

I ask that all of Louisiana join me in welcoming Mr. Mitchell into his new home.