Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I happen to know you are from Mississippi, and so as I speak about flood insurance, I suspect there are people in Mississippi whom you know or, perhaps, are related to who can relate to that which I describe.

I am speaking specifically about the uncertainty felt by those who rely upon flood insurance as we enter hurricane season. Unfortunately and tragically, we actually have a real, live example of this as Hurricane Beryl has hit an area that was devastated by Harvey just a few years ago. And anyone along that gulf coast who is dependent upon flood insurance to rebuild--and their premiums just rose--have now been hit by Beryl, and they can anticipate their premiums rising once more.

A program that is supposed to give security, instead, is creating anxiety. It isn't just the people who flood because some people who don't flood and who have never flooded will see their premiums rise as well. Why? It is because of the way that this program is being implemented.

Let me say that Louisiana stands with Mississippi; Louisiana stands with Texas; and we stand with all parts of the Nation that will suffer under the way that this program is being implemented.

So let me put up my first floor chart. We have the National Flood Insurance Program--or NFIP, as we call it--as a safety net for homeowners after a storm. It protects them from being financially wiped out by a hurricane or any other act of flooding. But this year is different from past years for two reasons. First, the National Weather Service predicts that 2024 will see above-normal hurricane activity in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Second, there is much more uncertainty about--and this is the key thing--whether NFIP will remain affordable due to FEMA's new risk assessment system called Risk Rating 2.0. For most people, the short answer is no--no that it will remain affordable.

But this is not the issue just for Louisiana. It affects Mississippi. It affects Texas. It affects all coasts and anyplace where there is a river or a stream. Anyplace there is water, there is a risk of flooding.

The National Flood Insurance Program covers 4.7 million policies across the country. And so those 4.7 million Americans rely upon NFIP to insure their homes and businesses, to keep their family safe. And we have seen flooding in States that you typically don't think of when you say ``flooding.'' Virginia, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, New York, New Jersey, Texas, Pennsylvania, California, Mississippi, and Alabama are all States that have had more than $1 billion in NFIP claims since 1978. Again, these States, over $1 billion in claims since 1978.

And those are just the States hardest hit, those in the dark. These lighter colored States have all been affected as well. Now, maybe not a billion, but if you are the family whose home has been washed away, it has affected you in one of the most profound ways.

I will also point out that this is not a rich man's program. If you look in these communities, like in Pennsylvania, oftentimes that is called riverine flooding. And folks who are less well-off tend to have the older homes in the bottom of the valley. When the flooding goes through and rips up their home, they have fewer financial resources by which to rebuild. So the kind of charge that this only protects luxury homes on a beach--totally false. This is for middle-income families, working families, and poor families, allowing them to have the security that they can rebuild after a tragic event.

In the past 3 years, we have seen seven major flooding events across the country, each costing more than $1 billion. In 2021, Louisiana saw flash flooding affecting thousands of homes. California, the State the Presiding Officer

now represents, has had two major floods--in January 2021 and the winter of 2023. Kentucky and Missouri both saw major flooding in July 2022 and Florida, in April 2023. Vermont, New York, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Illinois were each hit in July 2023. In December 2023, we saw flooding along the east coast States from Florida to Maine. Remember, these are just the floods that caused over $1 billion in damage.

When we consider, once again, who lives in these areas most affected, we see why we need to keep the NFIP affordable for working families. Sixty-two percent of all NFIP policies are in parishes and counties where the median household income is below the national average of about $54,000 a year. Once more, these are not billionaires' beach homes.

Hard-working people are uncertain whether they will be able to stay in their homes because of a decision made by a bureaucracy with zero input from Congress. Now we are seeing the consequences of that decision, with an estimated 900,000 people--one-fifth of all policies-- dropping coverage because it is unaffordable. When that happens, the pool of policyholders shrinks, and the program enters what is called an actuarial death spiral. That is where the risk is put on fewer people, which raises the premiums even more, which make those who are, relatively speaking, least at risk drop their policies, which concentrates it more--once more, a death spiral, setting up the program for collapse.

Congress needs to do something before it is too late. First, we need to step back and ask how we got into this situation. Why did FEMA implement Risk Rating 2.0? Why inject this much uncertainty into the system? Congress never passed a bill requiring that FEMA implement this.

President Biden could have stopped it with the stroke of a pen. We have done it in the past. In 2019, my office worked with the Trump administration to successfully delay implementation because of concerns over the methodology of how FEMA was calculating rates. This time, even though the concerns remain, the Biden administration would not work with us.

Since the Biden administration is allowing this to happen, Congress must step in. My team has worked on a bipartisan solution that will roll back Risk Rating 2.0 and make flood insurance affordable and accountable again.

Let me say to my colleagues: Let's talk about it. Let's have a conversation. Every single Member of this body has constituents who rely on the National Flood Insurance Program. We owe it to them to find a solution to a system that isn't working for Americans who were promised a safety net in case of a flood. Let's get to work.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Lisa Johnson, who has provided exceptional leadership for two decades as president of the Bossier Chamber of Commerce.

Since assuming her role in June 2004, Ms. Johnson's hard work has transformed the chamber, fostering remarkable growth in membership, community presence, advocacy efforts, and military relations. Under her leadership, the Chamber achieved its five-star accreditation from the U.S. Chamber in 2019, a distinction earned by only 3 percent of chambers nationwide. Additionally, it was twice named Louisiana's Chamber of the Year, recognized as a Military Friendly Chamber by Ventrepreneur Magazine, and honored as the 2018 Louisiana Association of Chamber Executives Chamber of the Year.

Ms. Johnson's impact extends well beyond the chamber. She is widely acknowledged for her role in connecting people and opportunities throughout Louisiana. Serving on several boards, including the Military Affairs Council, STARBASE, Bossier Office of Community Services, NWLa Military Support Foundation, Step Forward Leadership Council and Workforce Committee, and as an ex-officio member of the Independence Bowl Foundation, Ms. Johnson exemplifies unwavering dedication to community service. Her appointment as honorary commander for the 96th Bomb Squadron at Barksdale Air Force Base in 2018 underscores her profound commitment to supporting our military.

Ms. Johnson's leadership and contributions have made her an invaluable asset to Louisiana. On behalf of our State's residents, I extend my heartfelt gratitude to Ms. Johnson for her tireless dedication and selfless service.

I ask that we unite in honoring and celebrating Ms. Lisa Johnson for her outstanding leadership and profound impact on both the Bossier community and the State of Louisiana.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes, followed by Leader Schumer for up to 3.

Absolutely. And I did not mean to cut you off, and I apologize. I did not know you were in the queue. I apologize.

Madam President, I have been sitting here listening to this, and I can't help but notice that my Democratic fellow Senators have chosen to disrespect and deceive the American people as they politicize a deeply personal issue for short-term political gain-- distorting facts, capitalizing on the pain and the longing of women desperate to conceive, families desperate to hold a child. Democrats are trivializing, for political purposes, the substantial emotional, financial, and personal investment required of a woman and of a family to become pregnant through IVF.

Let's set the record straight. I support IVF. Republicans in the Senate support IVF.

Now, the tragic situation in Alabama has been used to fearmonger and scare that IVF is somehow in jeopardy, as though for someone who has a hope for a future family, that hope is threatened. And that is not true. Let's just say there is no State in the United States of America that prohibits a woman from growing her family through IVF, and Democrats know that.

Let me say that again. There is not a single State which bans IVF; and Alabama, which has been mentioned several times, specifically passed a law after the Mobile incident in which they make sure-- affirm--that IVF is available.

So this bill before us today would have done nothing to prevent that which happened in Mobile, where embryos were dropped and destroyed. In the recent case at Mobile's Center for Reproductive Medicine, a hospital patient wandered into the embryology lab--how did that happen?--removed five human embryos from cryostorage, and dropped them, destroying the embryos.

Tragically, cases like this are not isolated. There was a storage tank failure in San Francisco that resulted in the death of 3,500 eggs and human embryos and another in Ohio in which 4,000 eggs and human embryos died.

A recent investigation into a fertility clinic with 33 locations across the country uncovered multiple instances of accidental embryo destruction, mislabeled embryos, and labs with faulty heating, ventilation, and air conditioning.

Just this year, a fertility clinic in California used hydrogen peroxide instead of distilled water during the incubation period--used hydrogen peroxide instead of distilled water--rendering all of the embryos nonviable. Then, if you can believe it, the clinic allegedly transferred more than two dozen embryos into would-be mothers despite knowing that this would not end in a pregnancy.

It is expected, at a minimum, that fertility clinics protect and respect human life, keeping these treasured embryos safe. Women, mothers, parents--they deserve better.

But what we have today is a haphazardly copied and pasted bill that sets up a messy hierarchy of unfunded mandates and inconsistent policies. For example, under this legislation, private insurance companies are required to provide unlimited fertility treatments and related storage, but the bill limits how many treatments a veteran can get through the VA clinic.

So why are women who receive care at the VA treated differently than those with commercial insurance? If access to IVF is really a problem and this legislation is really needed, we could have addressed that if we had taken this bill through the committee process, but I note that Leader Schumer plucked it out of the committee before we had a chance to address the shortcomings, and he brought it to the floor for, I presume, political purposes.

By the way, we don't even have a CBO score. That is usually like, you can't bring anything to the floor unless you have a Congressional Budget Office score. How much is it going to cost? It is because this is not serious legislation. The CBO, by the way, acknowledges that it has not evaluated and cannot evaluate this mash-up of bills.

The committee process would have allowed us to explore the effect of a mandate on Federal programs like Medicare, the DOD, the VA, small businesses, and State Medicaid programs. So how will this legislation impact that woman business owner with 20 employees, 10 of whom are women in their childbearing years? We don't know. We don't know because this is not serious legislation. It was not taken through the committee process. It is a political process. Now, we can guess. Premiums will skyrocket.

I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.

That woman I described with a small business who has 10 employees must now make the challenging decision to absorb the new cost or consider not offering health insurance to employees or laying employees off.

Interestingly, labor unions got more time to comply with the insurance mandate than others. If this is a political bill, you would expect a carve-out for political supporters.

The bill requires coverage of genetic testing of human embryos, which may help inform decisions about which embryos to transfer first, but to what end? And will these tests be used to screen for life-ending conditions?

I only see two limits in this bill: one, on the ability of healthcare providers to exercise their conscience rights when practicing medicine and, two, on States that wish to regulate the practice of medicine in a way that treats human embryos with the value and dignity they deserve.

Republicans are so open to working with Democrats on a sincere bipartisan effort, but this is a show vote. Unfortunately, Democrats do not care about working with Republicans to protect IVF access. They wish to manufacture an issue they can campaign on.

Today's vote is disingenuous. Pushing a bill that is haphazardly drafted and destined to fail does a disservice to all women who may pursue IVF treatments.

I will end as I started. This seems a deceiving, disrespectful bill to misinform and scare the public and to gin up Democratic votes for November. And that is shame. Americans deserve better.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Harrison Dougherty and Zahra Naeini--interns in my office--be granted floor privileges until June 14, 2024.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to ask that baby to come back into the spectators' Gallery. That was the sweetest noise we have heard here for quite some time.

Right to Contraception Act

Madam President, Senate Democrats are using their power in the majority to push an alarmist and false narrative that there is a problem accessing contraception. They proposed a bill which is more about a solution to find a problem. Today's vote is nothing more than scaring and misleading, misleading, misleading the American people.

Here are the facts. Let me show this graph.

There is no State or territory that bans access to birth control pills. We made this graph. Here you see all the States that ban birth control are in orange, and all of the States that allow it are in green. As you notice, every State is green. This is not an issue. Unless--unless--your candidate for President is running behind in the polls, and there is a need to make people frightened; to turn out on a false issue; to, hopefully, improve poll numbers. But misleading and scaring voters seem to be, in their mind, the only way they can get that extra support.

But don't be mistaken, the bill goes way beyond protecting access to the routine use of birth control pills or other contraceptives. There are plenty of reasons why Republicans oppose this legislation. Here is what the bill actually does: It defines contraception so broadly that it likely also includes a right to a chemical abortion pill. It eviscerates conscience protections for healthcare providers, overriding the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA. In fact, if enacted, this would be a first time a law explicitly waived RFRA.

Now, by the way, we are a pluralistic society. Some people are pro- life; some people are pro-choice. But we have tried to find peace on this issue. You don't find peace by eviscerating people's rights to follow their conscience, knowing that there is a provider down the street that could give the service that would be required under this law.

And, finally, the bill prioritizes abortion provider Planned Parenthood, preventing States or the Federal Government from prioritizing funding for life-affirming organizations.

This is not serious legislation. It bypassed the HELP Committee. Just kind of taken out, brought straight to the floor. Again, not seriously considered, rather a vehicle for political grandstanding. It is not a serious process but, rather, a political stunt designed to fearmonger and mislead the public in an attempt to sway voters in an election year.

Republicans should not play along. I oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.

I also want to highlight my amendment to this flawed bill. While the bill is beyond improvement in current form, my amendment proposes to shed much needed light on another issue that has been pulled into the Democrats' political stunt of the month; that is, the fact that the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention has very little data on abortion, including on abortion survivors.

If the policy preference of the other party is to promote abortion on demand, the American people deserve accurate information on this policy's effects.

We were fortunate to meet a women who survived two--two--abortion attempts this week. She testified in the HELP Committee.

And so as Democrats continue to push the chemical abortion pill on women, we may learn of more abortion survivors, when at-home, unsupervised abortions fail and put mothers at risk.

My proposal directs the CDC to include attempted abortions as a method of delivery and collect data on abortion survivors. It would also direct the Department of Health and Human Services to refer abortion survivors to applicable Federal programs for vulnerable and newborn children. If Democrats stand behind their abortion-on-demand stance, why would they not support this policy.

Nevertheless, I suspect the other party will not be interested in considering my proposal as part of this bill or any other political show vote that is scheduled in the coming weeks.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to pay tribute to Lynette Fontenot, who is retiring from the Federal Emergency Management Agency after more than 18 years of service.

Mrs. Fontenot began her tenure at FEMA in November of 2005, shortly after the devastating Hurricanes Katrina and Rita made landfall in Louisiana's southeast and southwest coasts, respectively. During her time at FEMA, Mrs. Fontenot has worked primarily as a congressional affairs specialist, assisting numerous Louisiana congressional offices over the years.

Mrs. Fontenot's contributions extend beyond responding to congressional inquiries. She served as an effective liaison between our branches of government and assisted both House and Senate Committees and Members with coordinating meetings and visits throughout Louisiana.

Mrs. Fontenot is regarded as a tremendous asset to the entire Louisiana congressional delegation. On behalf of the people of Louisiana, I extended my heartfelt thanks to Mrs. Fontenot for her dedication and selfless service to our country.

I ask that all of Louisiana join me to thank and honor Mrs. Fontenot.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns in my office be granted floor privileges until June 7, 2024: Ms. Allyson Moore and Mr. Charlie Hayes.

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

Madam President, hurricane season started on June 1; and although we, of course, feel that particularly in Louisiana, I will note that last year, a hurricane hit Southern California. So this is something which can happen all over our Nation, and people in Louisiana know what people in California have learned: When there is a hurricane, there can be flooding. Now, we--I say ``we'' as we in Louisiana but, hopefully, people all over--know how to prepare; but this year, unfortunately, fewer people in Louisiana and fewer people nationwide will be able to count on the National Flood Insurance Program to help them in case they do flood.

The National Flood Insurance Program, or the NFIP, was created as a safety net for the most vulnerable Americans. The stereotype is that this is only for rich people who build properties on coastal islands which are bound to flood. The reality is these are working families. These are folks who have no place else to move. These are folks who have spent decades in communities that have never flooded; yet, nonetheless, they are left without the protection of the National Flood Insurance Program. The NFIP covers 4.7 million American homes, but because of the new FEMA risk assessment system, called Risk Rating 2.0, there has been an unprecedented spike in insurance premiums, making them unaffordable and causing people to drop their coverage.

I speak to constituents constantly about flood insurance. I just want to, if I can, channel my constituents onto the floor of the U.S. Senate and, perhaps, through C-SPAN and, perhaps, through the Congressional Record speak to the Nation through folks who feel as if they are not being heard.

I recently heard from a constituent in Larose, LA, who switched from the NFIP to a private insurance carrier because he could not afford his national flood insurance plan. Now, the private insurance plan isn't cheap--it is $2,200 a year--but he would have paid NFIP somewhere between $4,500 and $5,000 a

year, and that was 2 years ago. I note that the private plan is cheaper, although it is not cheap, which suggests that maybe the National Flood Insurance Program has things built into it that aren't required to be there.

By the way, his house is 6 feet above sea level, but the NFIP ignores that. The way the National Flood Insurance Program rates a home is not by how much you have elevated it above sea level but by the zone in which you live. So if you are surrounded by homes on slabs but you are elevated, you get rated just the same as they. According to his neighbors, the last time this area flooded was with Hurricane Juan in 1985, but his property did not flood.

Now, this story isn't unique or uncommon. Families across Louisiana and across the country are experiencing the same situation. You will love the names in Louisiana, but here is another one.

One retired couple living on Bayou Lafourche--meaning ``the fork''-- near Raceland, LA, dropped their National Flood Insurance policy because premiums rose from $500 to $2,500 annually. Some people might say: Oh, my gosh; $2,500 is just not a lot of money. For a family living in Bayou Lafourche, $2,500 is more than they can afford. Now, the premium increases are capped at 18 percent a year, but 18 percent compounded upon 18 percent compounded upon 18 percent quickly adds up.

Their son lives just down the road from them, and his flood insurance is going from $500 to $6,300. Obviously, this is not sustainable for your typical homeowner.

By the way, if you buy a new policy, then you are subject to the new rates right away--meaning, for example, you would be charged $6,300 off the bat, and you wouldn't start off with the lower amount and work your way up.

This brings us to a family in Lockport, LA. They just bought a new home and chose not to have flood insurance because the premium would have been too unaffordable. Now, they had the option that other homeowners don't have. Most mortgages in Louisiana require home buyers to get flood insurance. So if you take a mortgage, you have got to buy it.

This leads us to a business owner. He invested $1.2 million in a brandnew office building and warehouse in the town of Cut Off, LA. They are behind a levee system that has never failed, and they elevated the office 7 feet off the ground. He tells me that if he had taken a mortgage, he would have had to pay tens of thousands of dollars of combined insurance between the flood insurance and the property insurance, and it would have been more than his actual mortgage. He says: My gosh. Why would any business locate here if they could build somewhere else cheaper and with less red tape?

This tells us that not only is Risk Rating 2.0 charging pretty exorbitant rates for people who have never flooded, but it is stifling communities; it is eliminating economic growth; it is making people who live there move and keeping people who would like to live there from moving to there.

There is a man in Boutte, LA, who told my office his premium will increase to over $8,000 a year over the next 13 years. His flood insurance before Risk Rating 2.0 was $570. At the current rate, he will be paying more for flood insurance than his mortgage in 2 years.

I have said this before on the Senate floor and will say it again: Someone who has never flooded should never be paying more for their flood insurance than they are for their mortgage.

There is a constituent in Montegut, LA, who might lose his home altogether because he can't afford to keep it. He is a Korean war veteran. He and his wife are both in their eighties, and they took out a reverse mortgage on their house several years ago to help pay medical bills. They live behind a 12-foot levee, but their reverse mortgage requires them to carry flood insurance. That now costs them $6,500 a year; and that is on top of what he is paying for his homeowners insurance. If their flood insurance continues to rise, they will give up their home. And that is not right.

Now I speak to my fellow legislators.

We are elected to serve. If we are failing to address the issue of the National Flood Insurance Program and folks like this Korean war veteran and his wife, who are in their eighties, are driven out of their home because FEMA has decided they are going to develop a new system to assess, but that system has flaws and we don't address it, we are not doing our job. By this, by channeling these voices, I am asking that we in this body work to address these very human needs of fellow Americans.

Now, some of these stories are more dramatic than others, but they all have a common theme: They didn't flood, but they can't afford their insurance. Well, if you can't afford insurance and you don't flood anyway, then you are quite likely to drop your insurance. That is too bad because what that is going to do to the National Flood Insurance Program is create what is called an actuarial death spiral. If the low- risk people who don't flood are paying such high premiums that they drop their coverage, then all the remaining risk is put upon the remaining policyholders, which means they pay more, and there are going to be some of those who will drop out because they can't afford it. It will continue to concentrate the cost of the risk upon a smaller and smaller group of people until, ultimately, no one can afford this.

We are setting the program up--or at least FEMA is setting up the program--for collapse. FEMA itself forecasted that over 20 percent of policyholders will leave the program within 10 years.

Now is the time for Congress to act. But I want to be clear: This is not just a Louisiana or a gulf coast issue. I opened up by speaking about a hurricane hitting Southern California. This is an issue that affects the entire country. We are seeing, just by cost, the areas that are dark are those that have had over $1 billion in claims--so the mid- Atlantic States, the Northeast, including New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, and if you go across the gulf coast, including Texas, Missouri, and all the way out to California. Now, if you went over $50 million, then those are also these other tan States. This is a nationwide issue.

I am pleased to say we have a bipartisan solution. I urge my colleagues to come talk to me about the National Flood Insurance Program reauthorization and reform. These bipartisan Northeast-gulf coast, Democratic-Republican, liberal-conservative kind of perspectives that have been included in this have come up with a solution. This would make Risk Rating 2.0 transparent; it would make it affordable; and it would make it accountable.

We need a way forward, because if these stories just make one thing clear, it is that doing nothing is not an option. It is that doing nothing is a disservice to fellow Americans.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to pay tribute to retired Sergeant Fred Butler, Jr., who is celebrating his 85th birthday with his family in New Orleans, LA.

Mr. Butler was born on May 31, 1939, in Greensburg, LA. In 1960, Mr. Butler enlisted in the U.S. Army. During his 6 years of service, he was assigned to the 101st Airborne Division and completed an astonishing 99 parachute jumps. He also received two field promotions from General Westmoreland who commanded the American forces in the Vietnam war.

Mr. Butler's legacy extends beyond his individual achievements. His service ignited a sense of duty in three of his brothers, who proudly joined the military and served alongside him during his tenure.

Mr. Butler's sacrifice, courage, and unwavering commitment to our Nation is nothing short of inspiring. On behalf of the people of Louisiana and all Americans, I extended my heartfelt thanks to Mr. Butler for his selfless service and dedication to our country. May his birthday celebration be filled with joy, love, and appreciation.

I ask that all of Louisiana join me to thank and honor Mr. Butler.

I ask unanimous consent the Senate start the scheduled vote early.

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

Mr. President, everyone here--everyone here--everybody in the audience, everybody watching on C-SPAN has a loved one or knows of someone whom they have loved who has either overdosed or died, actually, from an overdose of fentanyl--an incredible scourge on our society right now. Drug overdose is the leading cause of death among young adults 18 to 45, and synthetic opioids like fentanyl are 75 percent of the cause, if you will, of U.S. overdose deaths.

Fentanyl continues to kill almost 200 Americans a day--200 Americans a day. Like, today, 200 Americans will die from a fentanyl overdose--an entire generation, dying. Illegal fentanyl and fentanyl-related substances are flooding into our market from the southern border in unprecedented amounts, with the bulk of it originating from a handful of manufacturers in Wuhan Province, China. By the way, you can't help but point out that this is worsened by the Biden administration's complete failure to secure the southern border.

Currently, fentanyl-related substances are classified as schedule I under the Controlled Substances Act. This classification provides law enforcement with the tools necessary to combat this emergency, going after the criminals who, again, are flooding our communities with these deadly drugs. But schedule I classification expires at the end of the year, and that is less than 8 months away.

Now, for years, Congress has not made this classification permanent, and every day we get closer to this deadline, we risk losing this essential law enforcement tool. If we don't act, the chemical manufacturers in China, the cartels, and the criminals who exploit our communities are emboldened, and we must not allow this to happen.

That is why today I am calling on the Senate to pass the Halt All Lethal Trafficking of Fentanyl Act, or the HALT Fentanyl Act, to permanently classify fentanyl-related substances as a schedule I controlled substance. Now, the bill is not controversial. There are no poison pills. All it does is codify current law, ensuring we don't lose tools we need to confront the fentanyl epidemic. The House--with as many problems as the House has had passing legislation--passed this bill on a strong bipartisan basis last year.

And the legislation removes barriers that impede the ability of researchers to conduct studies on these substances and allows for exemptions if the research provides evidence that specific analogs of fentanyl have a valid medical purpose. So we give law enforcement tools, but we also give the scientists, the medical scientists, tools to establish whether one of these analogs is worth having for medical purposes.

Now, it is important to note that this week is National Police Week. We honor police officers and their service to our communities. Now, these officers are on the frontlines of the fentanyl crisis, holding criminals accountable, saving lives by preventing the spread of drugs, but at times giving drugs like Narcan to reverse an overdose.

I am proud to say that we have a letter from 11 national law enforcement organizations supporting the HALT Fentanyl Act. And by passing this legislation, we will send a strong message to law enforcement: We have your back. We have your back as you battle the scourge of deadly drugs in our communities.

The clock is ticking. Failure to act puts Americans in harm's way. We must pass this bill and get it to the President's desk for signature.

Mr. President, now, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 467 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, recognizing that there has been an objection, I would like to point out a couple of things, though.

As regards permanently scheduling fentanyl-related substances would do nothing to limit overdoses: Congress has extended fentanyl scheduling on a temporary basis multiple times, and this has led to fewer overdoses and led to the creation of fewer new fentanyl-related substances.

Next, the idea that designating them all as schedule I would limit the ability of researchers to study fentanyl is just not true. There is no indication that the temporary scheduling of fentanyl analogs has stifled research. The DEA, the Drug Enforcement Agency, has approved every research study since 2018. But this bill goes further by putting a robust process in place to study fentanyl. It does not disrupt ongoing things, but it actually creates an expedited process for certain FDA studies to be done in partnership with Federal Agencies.

Lastly, that somehow this would contribute to overincarceration: The bill does not permanently bar DEA or HHS from continuing to look at the risks associated with it. If something has no risk, they can establish it has no risk. Therefore, it would not lead to overincarceration.

But we do know that fentanyl is a dangerous--a dangerous--substance, and if we are concerned about the overincarceration of a certain population of our society, I can guarantee you that that population, like every population, is having people dying today from fentanyl overdose; that whichever group of Americans we are speaking of, they are losing someone today from fentanyl; and that this bill would help save a life in that particular group and, most importantly, in all groups.

With that, though, recognizing there is an objection, I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.