Floor Statements

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, for months the HELP Committee, on a bipartisan basis, has investigated the financial mismanagement of Steward Health Care and the impact on the delivery of care at its hospitals.

Steward's mismanagement has nationwide implications, affecting patient care in more than 30 hospitals across 8 States, including one in my home State, Glenwood Regional Medical Center in West Monroe, LA.

Because of Steward's management decisions resulting in limited resources at Glenwood, the State had to force the hospital to operate at one-third capacity. One patient reportedly died waiting for transfer to another hospital because Glenwood did not have the necessary resources to treat.

According to a report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a doctor at Glenwood told a Louisiana State inspector that the hospital was performing ``third-world medicine.''

Now, the problems at Glenwood are not unique. The HELP Committee heard testimony that because of understaffing at a Steward-owned St. Elizabeth's Medical Center in Boston, patients at the hospital waited in the emergency room for hours and sometimes days.

We have also heard testimony that Steward neglected to pay the vendors for essential hospital services. At St. Elizabeth's, there is a report that when newborn babies died, nurses had to put their bodies into cardboard shipping boxes because Steward did not pay for proper bereavement boxes.

A new mother who experienced a hemorrhage, or a bleed, during childbirth died because a basic piece of medical equipment required to save her life to stop the bleeding had been repossessed because Steward did not pay its bills.

Through the committee's investigation, it became evident that a thorough review of Chief Executive Officer Dr. Ralph de la Torre's management decisions was essential to understand Steward's financial problems and its failure to serve its patients.

To better understand and hopefully prevent this from happening again, we sought testimony from Dr. de la Torre, frankly, giving him the opportunity to present his side. It is possible that there is something that we didn't understand. And if he presented it, that understanding would have given us a different perspective.

Unfortunately, Dr. de la Torre refused to testify voluntarily. As a result, the committee issued a subpoena in July. And up until September 4, his lawyers indicated he intended to comply with the subpoena and to testify. However, 8 days before the scheduled hearing, Dr. de la Torre informed the committee he would not comply with the subpoena.

We responded to Dr. De la Torre explaining why his objections to the committee subpoena had no merit, directing him to comply.

Unfortunately, Dr. De la Torre ultimately defied the subpoena, refusing to appear before the committee.

Now, a witness cannot disregard and evade a duly authorized subpoena. That is why today the Senate will be voting on a resolution to hold Dr. de la Torre in criminal contempt for defying the subpoena.

I think it is unfortunate that we are here. But if someone shows contempt for the American people by defying a subpoena and refusing to provide answers, that is a contemptible thing. Congress has a responsibility to act.

I urge my colleagues to approve this resolution and to hold Dr. de la Torre in contempt.

And with that, I yield to my colleague.

Madam President, I have come here periodically to speak about issues with the National Flood Insurance Program. I will today, but first I am going to talk about resiliency, environmental resiliency in particular. I am going to talk about acts of heroism; I am going to talk about North Carolina and South Carolina; and then I am going to end up with the National Flood Insurance Program.

Let's talk about resiliency. Hurricane Francine just hit my State, and where the Federal Government, State and local governments have invested and completed that investment in building resiliency, we did well. Our country did well.

From the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act by itself, $367 million has come to build flood control structures, and where those structures have been completed, they did not flood.

It reminded me of a couple of years ago when Hurricane Ida made a direct hit on New Orleans. I was with a mayor and a local elected official. We looked at each other, and one of them said: The ground is dry. Contrasting with Katrina when the levees failed and the whole city flooded, the mayor was making the point the ground is dry.

We can build resiliency. That is important for my State. It is important for your State, Madam President. It is important for our country. Wherever there is a threat of environmental disaster, with wise planning and public investment, we can build resiliency. That is the good news, and we saw that from Hurricane Francine.

But every now and then, there is still a need for heroism. So I would like to give just some recognition to some folks in my State who did some really positive things.

Folks from Louisiana have seen the story, heard the story of a guy named Miles Crawford, a nurse in New Orleans. In the middle of the storm, he gets a text from his brother. Someone had driven into the water and was sinking beneath the bridge. So the truck goes in, and then the truck begins to sink. Miles goes out there. It is on the TV. Somebody videoed it. He walks out there. I don't know how he broke the window, but he breaks the window, and the front is going down, but the person trapped inside comes out the back.

I say that because whenever we invest, there is always going to be something that slips through. And I want to give a shout-out to a fellow American who, in an act of heroism--by the way, there were firefighters down in what we call the bayou section. There were the utility linemen who went out after

the storm and quickly put the electricity back up.

But the point is that as much as we invest, still, we can look to individual Americans doing incredibly positive things for the sake of their fellow Americans. And I just want to give a shout-out to that. That will kind of lead into what I speak of in the National Flood Insurance Program.

By the way, it is not just Miles in Lafourche Parish. The sheriff's department saved a total of 26 people from rising waters. They got calls. They went out. They rescued. Heroism almost becomes routine.

Now, I am speaking of my State. It is easy to say: Oh, Louisiana floods. But let me talk about who else floods. The Carolinas have just had a rain event.

By the way, I mentioned Lafourche Parish, but this is Morgan City. So it was through our region that you see we had rain, but they were able to address it.

Now, this is Cherry Grove, SC. So rain events occur throughout our Nation.

I remember doing a reform for the National Flood Insurance Program when I was in the House of Representatives, and the Representative from New Mexico suddenly got on my bill. I said: Hey, man, what is happening?

He goes: We just had a rain event in our mountain and we had a gully washer and it flooded people in the gully.

There was a similar incident from Colorado. So this can be not just on a coastal plain, but it can also be in a riverine system, where there is a sudden gush of water, for whatever reason, and those who are in the valley of the river or the gully also flood.

Now, this is South Carolina. And I am using this to make the point that, one, you can build resiliency. As much as you build it, we still need people helping people.

And, by the way, this is not limited to Louisiana; it is across our Nation. And this picture just gives us the opportunity to make the point that this recent rain event--September 15, 2024, in the Carolinas--is something which is across our Nation, which brings me to the National Flood Insurance Program.

You know, we speak of building resiliency, but, still, we see either the resiliency has not been built or, for whatever other circumstance, there is still flooding. We see that we have these acts of heroism in which individuals help individuals. And, man, that is what makes America great.

We see that this is not just in Louisiana, but it is across our country. That is how we get to how fellow Americans help fellow Americans, not just by our brave firefighter, sheriff, or a nurse doing something at the moment but by wise public policy.

The wise public policy, as we have mentioned, is building resiliency, but it is also doing things like strengthening the National Flood Insurance Program to make it affordable, to make it accountable, and to make it sustainable. That should be our goal.

The National Flood Insurance Program was created for a moment like this. The water is beginning to recede, but you can see water is in here now. Those folks are going to have to pick up the pieces. It was an event that was unexpected. They are flooding, and now they need help from their fellow Americans. They purchased insurance. They have done their part. But we need wise public policy to make sure that that flood insurance is affordable when the high water comes.

The National Flood Insurance Program covers about 4.7 million Americans across our country. It enables people to rebuild when a flood destroys their home or just kind of washes out their belongings.

There are two challenges that we have in Congress regarding this program. We have to reauthorize it so it doesn't expire on September 30. My colleague Senator John Kennedy is sponsoring that straight-up reauthorization. That straight-up reauthorization is important for at least maintaining that minimum of coverage. But we also have to make it affordable again. Right now, it is unaffordable. It is unaffordable when it doesn't have to be unaffordable.

At the heart of the problem is something called Risk Rating 2.0. And Risk Rating 2.0 is a way in which FEMA is adjusting premiums, not to make sure that they are still affordable but to, basically, pay back a $20 billion debt that was accumulated after Hurricane Katrina and there were so many claims upon the system.

People in Louisiana consider that a little bit unjust. It was decided by a Federal judge that those levees failed in New Orleans because of a faulty design by the Army Corps of Engineers. But they failed. There are lots of claims, and now premiums are rising in an attempt to pay back that debt.

Now, as those premiums have increased, they have become too expensive for some who dropped their coverage because the premium is too expensive. But when the people who are least likely to flood drop their coverage, the risk is concentrated on fewer, which means the premium rises even more, premiums go even higher, and a few more drop off.

If we don't work to make this program affordable, it will enter what is called an actuarial death spiral where fewer and fewer are insured, the risk is concentrated on the remaining--which they cannot afford-- and the program falls apart. And this street is out of luck in Cherry Grove, SC, or perhaps in Lafourche Parish, LA, or perhaps even in a place in Nevada, where the Presiding Officer is from.

Forty-four States have had over $50 million in NFIP claims. Multiple States have had over $1 billion in NFIP claims since 1978. This is not just a local issue; this is a national issue.

And so my message to colleagues who represent--here you see it. Greater than $1 billion is the dark. Greater than $50 million is the in-between color between the light--notably, again, the Presiding Officer is from Nevada, which you think of as being a relatively arid State, but they have had over $50 million worth of claims in their State. But these have had over $1 billion.

So I am just asking colleagues to recognize that just as a firefighter, as a nurse, as a sheriff helps a neighbor in the middle of a trying time, the National Flood Insurance Program is a way that Americans help fellow Americans after a trying time. And wherever you see a color here, there are fellow Americans who have been helped by this program.

We are 12 days away from the September 30 expiration date. I would ask that we reauthorize and reform the National Flood Insurance Program before the opportunity has passed. Reauthorizing gives us time we need to find the right solution. We can reauthorize before the end of the year and find the right solution. It may be this Congress, it may be next Congress, but it is something that we must do. It must be bipartisan. It must reflect the interests of States across the Nation. But it is something that is the epitome of Americans helping fellow Americans.

I look forward to fellow Members and their staff speaking to my staff and I about this. Let's solve this problem.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, when President Biden and Vice President Harris took office, we had the lowest rate of illegal immigration in nearly 50 years. But instead of maintaining strong border policies inherited from President Trump, the Biden-Harris administration rushed to overturn them. They ended ``Remain in Mexico,'' reimposed so-called catch-and-release, and exempted unaccompanied children from title 42.

The result was predictable. The Biden-Harris open border policies encouraged the worst rates of illegal immigration ever, including over 500,000 unaccompanied migrant children. In fact, the month after migrant children were exempted from title 42, we saw the highest monthly total of unaccompanied children crossing the southern border in history.

The influx of migrant children under the Biden-Harris administration overwhelmed the Office of Refugee Resettlement, also abbreviated the ORR. This is the Agency responsible for unaccompanied children apprehended at the border and responsible for releasing them to thoroughly vetted sponsors.

ORR responded to this influx by sending children to hastily constructed emergency care facilities with untrained, unvetted staff and poor living conditions. The Agency also removed key sponsor-vetting requirements after senior Biden-Harris officials directed ORR to expedite the process of releasing migrant children to outside sponsors.

It is so easy to interpret this as a means to shield the White House from the political embarrassment of facilities overrun with unaccompanied children crossing the border that they had just opened.

In fact, as early as July 21, ORR staff warned superiors that ORR leadership had dismantled sponsor-vetting policies and that these changes weakened ORR's ability to protect children from risk such as trafficking and exploitation. Despite this, ORR left these policies in place for years while hundreds of thousands of children were released to poorly vetted sponsors.

You know, sometimes, it is easy to think this is partisan. Sometimes, it is easy to lose track as Republicans and Democrats talk about issues. But now, we are talking about kids--children that could be our children--who are being released to people who are not being vetted. It is easy to forget that. This is not partisan. This is something which should concern us all.

As a ranking member of the Senate HELP Committee, I am investigating the administration's failure to protect these migrant children from exploitation and abuse. I have learned that some of these children were forced into dangerous working conditions and exploited for illegal labor. At one such facility currently under investigation, a child was pulled into a meat processing machine.

By the way, again, we are not making this up. We have testimony from witnesses who speak to all of these facts. We have the whistleblowers who came to a roundtable. We have got the transcripts.

I have also learned that ORR's weakening of sponsor-vetting requirements directly led to children being put in harm's way. And in one instance, ORR neglected to verify whether the sponsor's claimed address was even a real home, and they sent this child to an address nothing more than open field. In another case, a 16-year-old was released to a sponsor who posted sexually explicit photos of the child on social media, including a photo with the sponsor touching the child inappropriately.

In addition to my investigation, I joined Senators Grassley and Johnson earlier this summer in hosting a Senate roundtable to examine ORR's failures and identify steps Congress could take to reform the Agency. We learned that due to failure at ORR, some unaccompanied children have been forced into drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and other criminal activity to pay off the cartels who brought them. All of this--according to whistleblowers--without followup or meaningful oversight from the Biden-Harris administration.

I repeat: This is not rhetoric, not fiction. This is what we are hearing from whistleblowers.

This exploitation also seemingly occurs while migrant children are still in ORR custody. In July, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Southwest Key Programs, the largest ORR contractor housing unaccompanied children, alleging that for nearly a decade, its employees have committed sexual abuse and harassment against unaccompanied children as young as 5 years old.

DOJ alleges that Southwest Key not only failed to take sufficient action to prevent sexual abuse but actively discouraged children from officially reporting these incidents.

Once more, this is not rhetoric. This is as a result of whistleblowers. This should not be partisan.

In August, I called on the HELP Committee chair to hold a hearing with Southwest Key and ORR officials to answer how these shocking allegations of sexual abuse went undetected for so long. So far, HELP Committee Democrats have not committed to a hearing or any effort to investigate.

And, by the way, Southwest Key still receives hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to operate shelters for migrant kids. If ORR will not take action in the wake of these allegations, Congress should. That is why I worked with Senator Grassley on legislation that would prohibit the use of Federal funds for Southwest Key or any other ORR grantee facing suspension and debarment procedures for allowing illegal sexual abuse or harassment of children in its care. I appreciate Senator Grassley's leadership.

The problems with ORR and the exploitation of children have been well-documented for years. Yet there has been no substantive effort by Biden or Harris to fix their open border policies--which caused these problems to begin with--or reform ORR to protect unaccompanied children from harm.

The exploitation of children should not be partisan. This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. When vulnerable children are harmed or die at the expense of bad policies or bad procedures or bad process, everyone should be outraged and everyone should be demanding change.

Unfortunately, it is clear that Republicans are taking this problem more seriously than Democrats.

It is not a messaging issue. It is an issue that challenges the humanity within us. It is something we should address whether or not it is an election year.

I wish that my Democratic colleagues would join Republicans tonight to pass this commonsense bill to hold ORR contractors accountable for the abuse and exploitation of children under their watch. We should protect these vulnerable children from harm as if they were our own.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that William McCarthy, an intern in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of today's session of the Senate.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the Veterans Celebration Committee, which has been together since 1999 to honor and support veterans throughout northwest Louisiana.

Every year, the Veterans Celebration Committee puts on a veterans honor ceremony in Shreveport. This past year, they held a program at the Shreveport Municipal Auditorium on Veterans Day. At that event, they honored specific veterans who make enormous contributions to their country and community. One such veteran was Mr. Sam Archie Mattox, who turned 104 years old last September. He served in the 642nd Company Army Field Organization and in Australia, the Philippines, Papua New Guinea, and Japan for 26 months during World War II. He was awarded two Bronze Stars, among other medals, and worked as a brick mason until he was 92 years old.

The Veterans Celebration Committee also honored veterans who served in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and in other theaters and now support churches, businesses, nonprofit groups, and other veterans in northwest Louisiana. One overcame homelessness to help homeless veterans in Shreveport. Another organizes fundraising events for Toys for Tots. Yet another serves as the assistant medical director for Overton Brooks VA Medical Center. The Veterans Celebration Committee ensures that northwest Louisiana knows about their accomplishments and service to the community, by publicly honoring them.

They also hold a veterans parade on the day after the veterans honor ceremony to give the community another opportunity to show their love for veterans. This year's parade will be the 13th to take place. Moreover, they hold an annual event close to Memorial Day that supports the family members of veterans and honors those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country.

When the Veterans Celebration Committee started its work in 1999, one of its cofounders was retired Air Force Colonel Steve dePryssler, who is the only known American to serve in World War II, Korea, French Indo-China, and Vietnam. He helped veterans obtain disability benefits, hosted annual POW-Purple Heart veteran's luncheons, established the Northwest Louisiana Veterans Home Trust Fund, and volunteered for 47 years at the Barksdale AFB retiree center, without pay. He passed away in 2020 at the age of 101, and every year, the committee gives an award in his name for outstanding service to veterans.

Today, the Veterans Celebration Committee carries forward the legacy of Colonel dePryssler to support and honor veterans in northwest Louisiana. I want to specifically thank Caddo Parish Commissioner Ken Epperson, Sr., for chairing the committee, and everyone who supports their efforts, including American Legion and VFW posts, Active and Reserve military units, Barksdale Air Force Base, and elected officials throughout the region. Thanks to them, our veterans are not forgotten and never will be.

Mr. President, today, the HELP Committee held an off- the-floor markup to consider three Biden-Harris labor nominees, including a new term for current National Labor Relations Board, or NLRB, Chair Lauren McFerran. Chair Sanders directed this vote to take place without a public hearing or an opportunity to hear from the nominees directly.

Ms. McFerran has served as a member of the NLRB since 2014, and President Biden picked her as Chair in 2021. It has been 10 years since Ms. McFerran has testified before the HELP Committee.

Since the HELP majority decided to skip a hearing to prevent an examination of Ms. McFerran's troubling record, I am speaking about her nomination on the Senate floor.

When multiple Board seats are vacant, the Senate's longstanding practice is to fill Democrat and Republican vacancies on important, bipartisan Boards and Commissions in tandem, but last September, Democrats reconfirmed Gwynne Wilcox, a Democrat nominee, without a Republican counterpart even though there were multiple vacant seats. The Senate should have considered Joshua Ditelberg as a pairing with Wilcox, not with Ms. McFerran. It is bad faith that the majority would represent these nominations as a pairing to justify this process.

As to the substance of Ms. McFerran's nomination, the NLRB is required by Federal law to act as a neutral party in labor disputes between employees and employers, not favoring one party over the other, but under Ms. McFerran's leadership, the Board has weaponized its authority on behalf of Democrats' labor union supporters at the expense of workers.

For example, the Board has overturned 50 years of NLRB precedent by renewing card check during union elections, which exposes workers to intimidation tactics; condensed the time for union elections down to as little as 3 weeks after a petition is filed, depriving employees of a fair chance to hear from both sides and to make an informed decision about whether to unionize; and implemented new, burdensome regulations preventing workers from leaving their union if the union has become ineffective or too costly. It has prevented employers from disciplining employees on the picket line who use racist and hostile language against other employees and managers. The NLRB deems using racist and hostile language as ``protected concerted activity.''

The weaponization of NLRB under Ms. McFerran's leadership is deeply troubling. Her clear bias against employers' and workers' rights deserves accountability.

Republican members of the HELP Committee have repeatedly called on the chair to hold a public hearing to discuss these concerns directly with her. It is unacceptable that they will be denied this opportunity.

Nomination hearings are not just checking a box; they are a crucial part of Congress's responsibility to review nominees. Every Senator uses information revealed in hearings to decide how he or she will vote on the flo or. Unfortunately, shielding Democrat nominees from scrutiny has been the norm of the HELP Committee under Chair Sanders.

Earlier this year, the chair decided to hold a closed-door committee vote on the renomination of Julie Su for Secretary of Labor. Since Ms. Su's first nomination attempt failed last year, concerns over her leadership of DOL have grown. HELP Committee members should have been able to raise these concerns with Ms. Su directly. Unfortunately, the chair blocked the public hearing from taking place.

Congress has a responsibility to rein in the executive branch and hold it accountable to the people and their elected representatives.

Last month, I introduced legislation requiring each Federal nominee to testify before the committee of jurisdiction prior to Senate confirmation. This bill should not be controversial to anyone. Frankly, it should be the standard.

The chair's refusal to have public hearings on important nominees is unacceptable. It undermines the committee's constitutional duty to advise and consent on Presidential nominees. The President and his nominees are not above accountability.

Given the serious concerns over Ms. McFerran's leadership and lack of accountability in the nomination process, I voted no on her nomination.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, Social Security is a sacred trust between the American people and our government. It is a promise to workers, many of whom have no other savings besides Social Security. A promise, almost by definition, does not change. It remains consistent despite new challenges. It is just a question of whether society has the courage to honor that commitment.

Now Social Security as we know it is headed for a fiscal cliff in 9 years. If it hits that cliff, if we do nothing and we just attempt to borrow our way out of it, there will be an estimated $615 trillion in accumulated debt over the next 75 years--again, if we just attempt to borrow our way out of it. If we don't borrow our way out of it, there is a 20- to 24-percent cut in benefits to Social Security recipients, both current and future. This is the rock and the hard place: either the 20-percent or so cut or, with borrowing costs, a $615 trillion addition to our Nation's deficit.

I have spoken before on Social Security. Today, I want to focus on two unfair provisions that we would eliminate if we actually have a chance to address Social Security, the larger picture. The two I will speak of are the windfall elimination provision and the government pension offset, also known as WEP and GPO. These penalize families across the country who worked in a State or a local public service job for part of their career and had a pension separate from Social Security.

How did we get here? WEP and GPO were introduced by President Clinton and Speaker Gingrich decades ago to address perceived inequalities in the Social Security system, but it had the effect actually of creating inequalities. When someone, say, worked for the State of Louisiana or the State of California, and then they didn't pay into the Social Security system, but they left that job after 20 years and went into the private sector, and they worked for 20 years paying into the Social Security system, getting their quotas, here, they were unfairly penalized, overly penalized for the years in which they did not contribute into Social Security.

What the windfall elimination provision does is it reduces the Social Security benefit of individuals who also receive a pension from non- Social-Security-covered employment--for example, State or local government. This has resulted in thousands of individuals who have paid into Social Security during their career but nonetheless received an overly reduced Social Security benefit when they retired.

This is WEP. Now let's talk about the government pension offset. The GPO reduces Social Security spousal or survivor benefits for individuals who also receive a government pension. This provision can reduce or even eliminate Social Security benefits that a spouse or a widow might have expected and relied upon.

Louisiana has more first responders per capita than any other State in the Nation and tens of thousands of teachers, meaning that our State is disproportionately affected by WEP and GPO.

A few years ago, I met a retired Louisiana schoolteacher impacted by GPO--again, government pension offset. She had been a teacher. Her husband had paid into Social Security. She should have gotten the spousal benefit from Social Security, but it was remarkably reduced. She cried in my office. She was unable to understand why she was getting less in Social Security spousal benefits than if she had never worked at all. Think about that. If she had never taught, she would have gotten more benefits than the fact that she did teach and was subject to this government pension offset. She felt that she was punished for being a teacher, educating generations of Louisiana children. Indeed, she was, and she is.

There is no excuse to treat public servants this way. WEP and GPO should never have become laws, but we have an opportunity to fix them.

With President Biden stepping aside in the Presidential race, he has the opportunity to show Presidential leadership--the Presidential leadership he failed to demonstrate until now--on the issue of Social Security. If he is going to serve as President for several more months, why not support a bipartisan plan to save Social Security, to hold true to the promise to our seniors, as well as to make the system fair, with one of his last acts in office. The American people deserve a President willing to work for them. Here is an opportunity.

Madam President, the American people understand the importance of energy: It keeps the lights on and puts food on the table. And living in Louisiana, you happen to know the person who works at the liquefied natural gas plant or at the oil rig, who produces the energy. He is your neighbor. That is why, with the Biden-Harris administration's pause upon LNG export permits in January, it was, to me, clear who they would be putting out of a job.

Last month, the American people gained a major victory. A U.S. district judge in Lake Charles ruled that the LNG pause was ``completely without reason or logic.'' The court ruling reinstated sanity at a time when the Biden-Harris administration adopted the most absurd arguments to please radical environmental donors.

The fact of the matter is the Biden-Harris pause was a clear attempt to undermine U.S. liquefied natural gas production and export by putting the kibosh on these new exports and depriving allies of freedom fuel.

Both President Biden and Vice President Harris have not been shy about their desire to kill American energy production. Vice President Harris has called for a total ban on fracking, adopting the ``leave it in the ground'' mentality of the far left, even going so far as to blow up the filibuster to pass the Green New Deal; that is, the now President of the Senate would have us end the filibuster to kill American energy, help China, Russia, and Iran, and raise prices on working families.

I don't know whether we should be more concerned about the fact that they say ``leave it in the ground,'' despite knowing that renewable resources can't meet U.S. energy demand, or that they say it thinking that it may actually work.

Curtailing U.S. natural gas production will not lower global greenhouse gas emissions, but unleashing American energy will. U.S. liquefied natural gas is one of the cleanest burning fuels in the world in terms of lifecycle emissions. In fact, natural gas is principally responsible for U.S. emissions being lower today than they were in 1988, despite a much larger economy and population.

And just because we limit the supply of natural gas, the demand does not go away. The demand instead will turn to other sources of energy. We saw this in Europe after the invasion of Ukraine. European countries refused to buy Russian natural gas--and I applaud that decision--but with the Biden-Harris LNG export pause, the world must turn to dirty alternatives like oil or coal purchased from dictators or despots in Russia and Iran. It was as if Putin himself called up the Vice President, called up the President, and said: Let's put a pause on this because, by golly, this is going to help the Russian economy.

Now, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that, as coal use goes up, global emissions increase. The administration's thinly veiled plan to reduce global emissions actually backfires. It backfires because, if other countries don't get our natural gas, they burn their coal, and global emissions increase.

The administration's war on American energy didn't just affect our allies; it also wages a war on American workers. Two-thirds of U.S. liquefied natural gas is exported from Louisiana, providing thousands of Louisianians with good paying jobs. The Biden-Harris freeze impacted 18 LNG export facilities, 12 of which were going to be built in my State.

Now, ``to be built'' is the key phrase here, because it didn't just affect energy jobs; it affected construction jobs as well. Because the Biden-Harris administration wants to appease the rich climate lobby, the future and financial security of construction workers in Louisiana and across the country is thrown into limbo.

Now, even though we have this court ruling, we are not out of the woods.

The Federal court's ruling brought common sense back, but the Department of Energy can still slow-walk permits, and this is something Congress must watch closely. This is something Congress is already looking to address, with bipartisan support for setting a time limit on how long the Department of Energy can take to review new permits--a shot clock, if you will.

When we unleash American energy production and LNG exports, it creates high-paying jobs, it boosts our economy, and it strengthens the United States and the national security of allies. It denies income to Putin and drives down global greenhouse gas emissions. These should all be bipartisan goals.

Common sense prevailed in the courts. Now it is time for common sense to return to the White House.

Madam President, the National Flood Insurance Program, or NFIP, was created to protect Americans and their families. It covers 4.7 million American homes. But NFIP fails to serve that core function when it becomes too expensive to afford.

This is my poster: Make flood insurance affordable.

FEMA's new risk assessment, Risk Rating 2.0, has blindsided homeowners with unprecedented spikes in their insurance premiums, and it was never passed by Congress.

I speak to constituents constantly about flood insurance. A few month ago, I shared several stories that my team and I have heard from people in Louisiana about the issue. And their stories matter. They are the stories of Americans struggling to get by, and they deserve to be heard. So I am back to share a couple more.

One resident in New Orleans, nearing retirement, told us she was struggling to keep up with rising premiums because they no longer allow her home to be grandfathered into the program. Her house was built in 1987, up to the standards under the flood map at the time. She did everything right.

Her home flooded during Katrina, like so many did, but, again, it was saved from skyrocketing premiums until Risk Rating 2.0. And it is important to note that the flooding during Katrina was due to the failure of federally designed and built flood walls. So she is being blamed for the Army Corps of Engineers' failure, and, therefore, now she has got skyrocketing premiums.

She tells us that her future premiums will eventually rise to over $8,000. Her hazard insurance is almost $12,000 and growing each year. She wrote:

There is no way I will be able to retire and afford the

premiums. I can hardly pay them now. There is no way I will

be able to retire.

Her story is one that is shared by many homeowners in our State. There is another woman in the city of Central, LA, just outside of Baton Rouge, an area that doesn't often flood. As she put it, in order for her house to flood, the whole city of Central would need to be under water.

But when Risk Rating 2.0 hit, she learned her premiums would quadruple if she opted for the coverage she wanted. So, instead, she dropped coverage altogether.

Now that is the problem with blindsiding people with higher premiums. If they don't flood and they cannot afford insurance, they drop their coverage. When that happens, the pool of policyholders shrinks, and the risk is put on fewer and fewer policyholders, which raises their premiums even more, and you enter what is called an actuarial death spiral.

FEMA itself forecasted that over 20 percent of stakeholders would leave the program within 10 years with these increased premiums. We are setting the program up for collapse.

And, by the way, these are not wealthy people. The wealthy are like a small minority of those affected. There is a stereotype that this is for wealthy people with their camps at the beach. No, this program is for working and middle-income Americans, the kind of folks who wake up every day, go to the refinery, make the gasoline and the jet fuel that help us get here, and do the work that literally powers our economy. And they are the ones that are affected.

Madam President, 62 percent of all NFIP policies are in parishes and counties where the median household income is below the national average of about $54,000. These are hard-working families, not millionaires' beach homes.

And it is not just Louisiana families getting hit. We have seen flooding in States that don't typically make you think of flooding.

So if it is the dark yellow, it is a State that has had over a billion dollars in claims. That includes the President of the Senate's home State of California, her native State of Mississippi, and all of these other beach States, including a non-beach State, which would be the State of Missouri.

So the yellow which is not as dark is, again, places which have had over $50 million in NFIP claims. So you see this is a pervasive problem.

This is a national program. Forty-four States have had over $50 million in total NFIP claims, and every single State has had at least $5 million in claims.

You may be surprised to hear that Ruidoso, NM, a small village in South Central New Mexico, has faced 13 flash flood emergencies since June 19 of this year due to runoff from heavy rain.

On July 17, homeowners in Nashville, IL, were devastated when the town's dam flooded and caused damages to dozens of homes.

On May 24, Montana Governor Greg Gianforte issued an executive order to declare a statewide disaster in response to recent flooding in Northern and Central Montana.

Residents of Appleton, WI, faced widespread damage from a flash flood earlier this year.

New Mexico, Illinois, Montana, Wisconsin--not places you typically think of when you think of flooding. Again, it is a national issue, not just a coastal issue.

Now, let me say to my colleagues who represent those States and all of my colleagues that come to talk to me about it: Let's have a conversation. Every single Member of this body has constituents who depend upon the National Flood Insurance Program. My team is working on a bipartisan solution that will roll back Risk Rating 2.0 and make flood insurance affordable and accountable again. Let's find a way forward.

Madam President, for 25 years, the Venezuelan people have suffered. They have endured the Chavez-Maduro despotic regimes--regimes that stole their money, ruined their country's infrastructure, destroyed public services, tortured their politicians, and tried to destabilize the entire region.

One little factoid: At one point, Venezuela had the third richest economy in the Western Hemisphere per capita, and now their per capita income is that of Haiti. They have gone from third to being the worst.

But Venezuela's freedom-loving citizens kept fighting. Yesterday, again, they went out to vote for freedom in a movement led by Maria Corina Machado, the opposition leader who was herself barred from running, and Edmundo Gonzalez, the opposition's candidate. The result was an overwhelming--overwhelming--win for the opposition and for democracy.

And here is Maria, and here is Edmundo.

Multiple exit polls and quick counts show the opposition winning by more than 30 percent. Edmundo Gonzalez won with the largest landslide in Venezuelan history. This landslide win comes despite the regime's efforts that barred the vast majority of the 8 million Venezuelan exiles from voting. The real electoral numbers were so bad that the regime simply stopped counting votes and made up numbers.

Now, Venezuelans obviously want change, and the regime does not. They are desperately holding on to whatever power they can grab. This is a critical moment in our hemisphere. Do they have to wait with another 25 years of tyranny and repression when they are just 3 hours from the United States? Do we, the United States, allow the Russians, the Chinese Communist Party, the drug cartels, Iran, and others to use Venezuela as ground zero in their plans to harm the United States and our allies in the hemisphere? Do we allow Venezuela's collapse to eventually flood the United States with refugees?

We need to change course. It starts by recognizing President-elect Edmundo Gonzalez. It starts with an

international coalition to ensure the political transition that Venezuelans already began at the polling booth.

The world knows what happened at the ballot box over the weekend, but we must have the courage to come together, stand against Maduro, and tell him: Not this time.

I stand here today saying so: Not this time.

Maria Corina has always said her fight will ``go until the end,'' as she puts it. The free world must ensure that this is not the end.

With that, I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, think about how much has happened over the last several weeks. We have had one Presidential candidate survive an assassination attempt. Our current President is dropping out of the race. We

have had protesters burning an American flag and raising a Palestinian flag as the United States' closest ally gave a speech to Congress yesterday. That is how much has happened in several weeks.

Guess what hasn't happened in 25 years? An update of how to protect children on their online experience. That has not changed in 25 years, even when so much happens in just a few weeks. So rules from 25 years ago cannot effectively govern social media sites that did not exist 25 years ago, were not conceived of 25 years ago.

We have waited too long to update these rules, but today we have a chance to fix. The current armor protecting children's internet activity passed into law in 1998. Babies born that year are well into their professional careers. People were concerned about Y2K, and Nick Saban had not become LSU's football coach.

Of course, the 1998 rules do not prohibit Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok from collecting personal information on young teenagers without consent because that was not envisioned 25 years ago.

Today, the internet is an integral part of a child's life. The information a child has access to has drastically expanded, exposing children to risks that they may not have the maturity to navigate independently.

The internet has so many good things and can be a great learning tool for our children. But we can't ignore the dangers--the adult content, the pornography, the cyber bullying, the violence, the predatory behavior, the overall impact upon our children's mental health. Our children should not be left to face these challenges alone. Under current law, the law passed in 1998--good for the time, but not for now--only children less than age 13 were covered, leaving a whole population of teenagers unprotected.

With 95 percent of teenagers between 13 and 17 using social media, their protections should be expanded. By expanding these protections, by banning targeted advertising, by limiting data collection, and strengthening parental control, COPPA 2.0 enables safer online experiences and guards against exposure to manipulation and exploitation. This, in lockstep with the Kids Online Safety Act, or KOSA, will give the parents the peace of mind to know their child is safer than they were before.

These bills empower parents. They empower children. They are bipartisan no-brainers, which is why they have overwhelming bipartisan support in both Chambers of Congress.

Look, I am a doctor, a father, a grandfather. But I am not the only grandfather and father voting on these pieces of legislation. Anyone with children knows that they would do anything to protect those children. Congress has a chance to reflect that paternal and maternal instinct and take a serious step to protect our children. These bills will make a difference. I urge my colleagues to support.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to commend and honor the 150th anniversary of First Baptist Church Baton Rouge.

Since its founding, on September 30, 1874, First Baptist Church Baton Rouge has served as a cornerstone of faith, community, and service-- bringing people to know the everlasting love and salvation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Over the past century and a half, First Baptist Church Baton Rouge has been dedicated to the spiritual growth and well-being of its congregation, offering a place of worship, fellowship, and support for all who enter its doors.

First Baptist Church Baton Rouge has been a beacon of hope, providing outreach programs, educational initiatives, and charitable services that have positively impacted all involved. Additionally, the church fosters a strong sense of community and embodies the values of love, compassion and service through worship, music, education, and outreach continues to make a profound difference in the lives of individuals and families in Baton Rouge and beyond.

On this significant milestone, we recognize and celebrate the enduring legacy of First Baptist Church Baton Rouge and its contributions to the cultural, spiritual, and social fabric of our community.

It is truly an honor and privilege to commemorate First Baptist Church Baton Rouge on their 150th anniversary. I ask that we extend best wishes for many more years of valuable ministry and service.