Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a staffer on my team, Zoe Aguillard, who has served the people of Louisiana for 7 years, the fourth-ranking member of my office, a staffer whom I relied upon during my time in the Senate, who is now leaving for what she thinks to be greener pastures.

It is always bittersweet when a staffer leaves. I had been teaching medical school for many years before coming here. You see talented younger people come on board, and you know they have a tremendous future ahead of them. So if they move on to that tremendous future, you can't cry; you must celebrate.

But, nonetheless, you regret losing someone who has grown so much, both as a person, but also in her achievements and in the affection your entire family has for her.

Zoe started as a scheduler, somewhat green. She quickly became the boss, making everything go on time. She had the honesty to tell me it would go even better on time if I showed up on time. But she had a real ability to speak honestly in a very tactful way to modify my behavior.

Whether it was meetings with constituents, townhalls, events, speeches, she worked behind the scenes to make it happen. And, importantly, she became very sensitive to the fact that I am a family guy who would like to be home for my grandson's graduation from fourth grade and would like to spend time with my wife--all those things that are beyond scheduling and move into trying to truly understand how someone lives their life.

The President of the Senate right now and all my colleagues know a scheduler and operations director makes or breaks your office. They help to squeeze the most out of every single day. And things you might find impossible, they find a way to get it done 7 days a week, every day of the year.

Examples: Zoe has been key in helping to plan the Senate's National Seersucker Day. I look forward to seeing my colleague from Vermont tricked out in his Seersucker suit for this year's Seersucker Day. It looks great on TV. She helped host Thursday Lunch Groups for my Republican colleagues and many other things we have done in-State and here to benefit our State and our Nation. Whether they realize it or not, nearly every office in the Senate has worked with Zoe at some point.

The difference she has made during my tenure cannot be summarized in one speech. But I don't get emotional because I will continue to work with Zoe. She is moving back to Louisiana--the State she holds in her affections--to the benefit of our State, our country, and our fellow humans. I wish her the best, and I wish her dog Louie the best. They will both be missed in our office.

(The remarks of Mr. Cassidy pertaining to the introduction of S. 4329 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I speak in support of renaming the post office in Rayville, LA, as the Luke Letlow Post Office Building in memory of a great American, Luke Letlow.

Luke was a public servant, father, and husband in his short life of 41 years. He spent almost all of his adult life serving his fellow Americans. And shortly after being elected to the U.S. House of Representatives to represent the fifth district of Louisiana, he became one of over a million Americans lost to COVID during the pandemic. Now his wife, Congresswoman Julia Letlow, carries on Luke's ambition to serve the same district that he had served both as a staffer and as a chief of staff to Congressman Ralph Abraham.

When you go through Rayville, you pass that post office. Handsome guy, huh? So by naming this post office--and the people who know this story--I want them to know that our State and our country values someone who desired to serve so much, but also acknowledge the tragedy and the impact COVID had upon our State, our country, and our families. This office commemorates all that.

I thank House Majority Leader Steve Scalise for introducing the House companion and the whole House for passing this bill.

Madam President, I speak in support of renaming the post office in Rayville, LA, as the Luke Letlow Post Office Building in memory of a great American, Luke Letlow.

Luke was a public servant, father, and husband in his short life of 41 years. He spent almost all of his adult life serving his fellow Americans. And shortly after being elected to the U.S. House of Representatives to represent the fifth district of Louisiana, he became one of over a million Americans lost to COVID during the pandemic. Now his wife, Congresswoman Julia Letlow, carries on Luke's ambition to serve the same district that he had served both as a staffer and as a chief of staff to Congressman Ralph Abraham.

When you go through Rayville, you pass that post office. Handsome guy, huh? So by naming this post office--and the people who know this story--I want them to know that our State and our country values someone who desired to serve so much, but also acknowledge the tragedy and the impact COVID had upon our State, our country, and our families. This office commemorates all that.

I thank House Majority Leader Steve Scalise for introducing the House companion and the whole House for passing this bill.

Madam President, I thank Senator Brown, and I thank my colleagues.

April 16, 1963.

My Dear Fellow Clergymen:

While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came

across your recent statement calling my present activities

``unwise and untimely.'' Seldom do I pause to answer

criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the

criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have

little time for anything other than such correspondence in

the course of the day, and I would have no time for

constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of

genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set

forth, I want to try to answer your statement in what I hope

will be patient and reasonable terms.

I think I should indicate why I am here in Birmingham,

since you have been influenced by the view which argues

against ``outsiders coming in.'' I have the honor of serving

as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference,

an organization operating in every southern state, with

headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. We have some eighty five

affiliated organizations across the South, and one of them is

the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Frequently

we share staff, educational and financial resources with our

affiliates. Several months ago the affiliate here in

Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent

direct action program if such were deemed necessary. We

readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our

promise. So I, along with several members of my staff, am

here because I was invited here. I am here because I have

organizational ties here.

But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is

here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left

their villages and carried their ``thus saith the Lord'' far

beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the

Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the

gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco

Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of

freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must

constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.

Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all

communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and

not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice

anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in

an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment

of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all

indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the

narrow, provincial ``outside agitator'' idea. Anyone who

lives inside the United States can never be considered an

outsider anywhere within its bounds.

You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham.

But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a

similar concern for the conditions that brought about the

demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest

content with the superficial kind of social analysis that

deals merely with effects and does not grapple with

underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are

taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate

that the city's white power structure left the Negro

community with no alternative.

In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps:

Collection of the facts to determine whether injustices

exist; negotiation;

self purification; and direct action. We have gone through

all these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the

fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham

is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United

States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes

have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts.

There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and

churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation.

These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of

these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the

city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage

in good faith negotiation.

Then, last September, came the opportunity to talk with

leaders of Birmingham's economic community. In the course of

the negotiations, certain promises were made by the

merchants--for example, to remove the stores' humiliating

racial signs. On the basis of these promises, the Reverend

Fred Shuttlesworth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian

Movement for Human Rights agreed to a moratorium on all

demonstrations. As the weeks and months went by, we realized

that we were the victims of a broken promise. A few signs,

briefly removed, returned; the others remained. As in so many

past experiences, our hopes had been blasted, and the shadow

of deep disappointment settled upon us. We had no alternative

except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present

our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the

conscience of the local and the national community. Mindful

of the difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a

process of self purification. We began a series of workshops

on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves: ``Are you

able to accept blows without retaliating?'' ``Are you able to

endure the ordeal of jail?'' We decided to schedule our

direct action program for the Easter season, realizing that

except for Christmas, this is the main shopping period of the

year. Knowing that a strong economic-withdrawal program would

be the by product of direct action, we felt that this would

be the best time to bring pressure to bear on the merchants

for the needed change.

Then it occurred to us that Birmingham's mayoral election

was coming up in March, and we speedily decided to postpone

action until after election day. When we discovered that the

Commissioner of Public Safety, Eugene ``Bull'' Connor, had

piled up enough votes to be in the run off, we decided again

to postpone action until the day after the run off so that

the demonstrations could not be used to cloud the issues.

Like many others, we waited to see Mr. Connor defeated, and

to this end we endured postponement after postponement.

Having aided in this community need, we felt that our direct

action program could be delayed no longer.

Madam President, if there was a theme of this colloquy, it is that students and families are bearing the brunt, the consequences of this administration's botched FAFSA rollout. So let me just speak to that more broadly.

First, state of play: May 1 is national college decision day, which should be just like an exciting day for the kids and the families.

In my day, they used to go to the mailbox and pop open the mailbox. There is an envelope. Show it to Mom. Show it to Dad. Whoa, isn't that exciting? But that is not going to happen this time by email or by snail mail.

The issue here is clearly because of the administration's botched rollout. Now, what do I mean by that? First, let's explain what FAFSA is. FAFSA is the information that a prospective student receives as to the amount of financial aid they will receive if they go to this college or that college.

So they open it up, and they say ``Oh, this is how much I get to offset tuition if I go to my local State school'' or ``No, I want to go out of State. How much do I get to go there?'' They can compare those financial offer sheets and make a decision as to what is the best place for them to go financially. But that is not going to happen or if it happens, it is going to happen in a poor way.

So the timeline is, last October is when FAFSA should have been ready, but the system wasn't ready, and we were told it would be ready in January. It was for about 3 or 4 days, and then it was delayed until March. Now we learn that about 30 percent of those FAFSA forms have processing data errors and have to be reprocessed, and they won't be reprocessed until after the May 1 deadline. So instead of opening up that email and learning what your financial package could be, it will be ``You will hear at a later date.''

So what are the consequences? Colleges cannot offer these students their financial package because of the processing errors. Some students will decide not to go to school because they don't know if they can afford it. Some universities will have a cash-flow problem because the students who might have gone there for enrollment will not, and so the cash-flow problem will be very real.

Now, what is doubly frustrating is that the administration has been doing things they shouldn't have been doing instead of doing that which they should have done. Remember, they were supposed to have this ready in October, then in January, and then it goes down again. When it finally comes up in May, we are told that 30 percent of them will be in error, when it was supposed to be ready in October.

What have they been doing in the meantime? They have been working on student loan ``forgiveness,'' which really means student loan transfer of debt from those who willingly took that student debt on-- transferring it to someone who either paid back their loan or never went to college. That is what they have been doing.

By the way, we have this hotline here: Trouble with FAFSA? Go to help.senate.gov/FAFSA. We have had this up, and we have gotten some responses. Let's see. Not receiving clear instructions when able to reach a person, and the total thing was about anger about the long wait times on the phone. This is when they call the Department of Education or FAFSA, trying to get an understanding. Another person: frustration about the continued delays and the lack of communication, and then there are additional delays, which seem to be frequent. Uncertainty due to the lack of communication from the Department, and when there is information, it is not helpful. Parents are expressing concerns and anxiety about choosing the best school for their child due to the compressed decision timeline. For those who have been through the process in the past, they describe this year as ``being significantly worse.''

It is up to Congress--and this colloquy is Republicans, but I invite my Democratic colleagues to come on board and hold the administration accountable. This should not be partisan. It is about the students. It is about the parents. It is about the integrity of a process that the Department of Education is totally failing.

For those watching, if you have an experience with FAFSA that you wish to report, please go there--help.senate.gov/FAFSA.

I invite all my Senate colleagues to join me and the HELP Committee in terms of holding this administration accountable.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, last week, we saw terrible flooding in parts of Louisiana. Here, as the charts will show--water shouldn't be up to the bottom of a vehicle. Here you see people getting on a bus, wearing waders. So people's lives were disrupted, just like with any serious flood. Now families are turning to FEMA, the National Flood Insurance Program, to help lift them out of the hole that last week's storms have left them in.

Moments like these are why people buy insurance. But what about after we have recovered and the Sun shines once more? There is increasing concern among Americans that they will not be able to afford their flood insurance for when the next storm hits.

A house is the biggest purchase most people make in their lifetime. Unless

you are among the wealthiest, you are taking out a mortgage to make that purchase. After you have bought your home, imagine if FEMA changes the rules and your flood insurance now costs more than that mortgage? No American should have to pay more in flood insurance than their mortgage, but that is the story I am hearing frequently from people in Louisiana.

There is a cost-of-living crisis being fueled by the inflation created by this administration. Inflation is costing Louisiana families $884 more a month compared to 2021. Everywhere they turn, they are frustrated with the fact that they are paying more and getting less.

When I speak to folks back home, they are not only worried about how to put food on their table but also how to pay for gas. They are worried about how they are going to be able to afford to stay in their homes and about how they can afford a good education for their children.

I would like to do something about some small part of it. Congress has the power to do something about it, and that is to make flood insurance affordable.

The National Flood Insurance Program was created as a safety net for the most vulnerable Americans. It covers 4.7 million American homes, but those millions of homes are at risk of losing their protection because of skyrocketing premiums caused by FEMA's new risk assessment system, Risk Rating 2.0.

Let's briefly talk about the history of NFIP Risk Rating 2.0 and how we got here. FEMA introduced Risk Rating 2.0 in October of 2021. It was slated to take effect in 2022 for new policies and in 2023 for existing policyholders.

Since then, Americans who rely on flood insurance have been held in a state of uncertainty. Before they were hit with that first bill, many families didn't know if their premiums would jump up; if they did, how much; and when the rate hikes would end.

FEMA told us that 77 percent of policyholders would see a premium hike but refused to publicly disclose how the Agency calculates individual policy rates. So now FEMA is sending Americans a bill and won't tell them how they came up with the price. If you were the American getting that bill, you would be incredibly frustrated. You wouldn't accept it if your mechanic stuck you with a crazy bill but didn't tell you what was wrong with the car. Why should we just accept from a government Agency that same kind of model? Theoretically, the government Agency is here to serve us.

Louisiana is one of the States getting hit the hardest. NFIP premiums in Louisiana are expected to go up by 234 percent, with some ZIP Codes seeing as much as an 1,100-percent increase--that is 1,100 percent. In real terms, some ZIP Codes will see an increase from around $600 to more than $8,000 annually. Couple that with the homeowner's insurance crisis. Couple that with inflation across the country. Couple that with the cost to heat your home. Couple that with the cost to go to the grocery store. It is clear why Americans feel they cannot keep their heads above water.

Insurance, just like everything else, has become less affordable. When folks can't afford flood insurance, they begin to drop that coverage, and the pool of policyholders shrink. The amount of risk is then placed on a smaller number of policyholders, which increases their premiums, which makes them drop their policies, and then we enter what is called an actuarial death spiral.

FEMA itself forecasted that over 20 percent of policyholders will leave the program because of higher premiums within the next 10 years. We are setting the program up for collapse and leaving Americans and American taxpayers holding the bucket.

Some groups will be hit even harder than others. FEMA won't tell us how they came up with the numbers of what they expect Americans to pay, but we do know they do not factor in income or the ability to pay. There is no discount or consideration for an elderly couple who is retired and living on a fixed income, bought their home in 1957, never had it flooded, and now their insurance premiums are rising. This is a real human condition.

Congress has the power to address it, and we need to step up now. If my colleagues and our friends in the House of Representatives wish to honor the people we serve, let's start with the 4.7 million policyholders being--I don't know if the word is ``mistreated''-- mishandled by the National Flood Insurance Program, certainly poorly served.

I urge my colleagues to read our NFIP Reauthorization and Reform Act. Come talk to us about it. It is something which is bipartisan, which is reasonable and sensible, and which will actually address this need. Our goal is to make the National Flood Insurance Program more affordable for the homeowner, more accountable to the taxpayer, and more sustainable for society. Our bill does that, but we can only do so by working together.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Meagan Ezell, an intern in my office, be granted floor privileges until April 17, 2024.

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

Madam President, the Senate will soon vote on the Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval, hoping to overturn the Biden administration's new joint employer rule. This policy threatens the viability of the American franchise model in favor of coerced unionization.

There are 800,000 franchise businesses operating in our communities. They employ over 9 million Americans. The franchise model has particularly empowered underrepresented groups in the business community, such as women and people of color. This allows them to become a successful business owner, to live the American dream, and to create an opportunity for their own family and for their employees.

President Biden's new joint employer rule threatens this critical business model. It forces legal liability onto franchisers for the labor decisions of individual franchise owners despite the franchiser having no operational authority over the business's employees.

Saddling franchisers with liability for thousands of franchise owners that operate as small businesses is a sure way to destroy the system of franchising. According to the International Franchise Association, when the Obama administration imposed a similar policy, small businesses lost $33 billion per year collectively due to increased liability costs.

The Biden administration's policy has strong opposition from Republicans and Democrats. It is also opposed by over 100 organizations, including those representing small businesses and workers who will be severely impacted.

It is not surprising that the joint employer rule is a major priority for large labor unions. It is easier for unions when they only have to negotiate with one major entity rather than with each individual small business. This allows the union to wield more influence in the collective bargaining process.

President Biden promised to have the most pro-union administration in history. This priority should not be making it easier to forcibly and coercively unionize workers while undermining the business model of the establishments they work for. It should be supporting workers and increasing economic opportunity. Unfortunately, this policy does the opposite. It threatens the jobs of the over 9 million American workers employed by and earning a living from the franchise business model.

I close by encouraging all my colleagues to pass this bipartisan CRA resolution and support those Americans who otherwise would not be able to own a business without the franchise model. Let's stop this harmful overreach that only hurts jobs and economic development in our communities and denies opportunities for Americans seeking a better life.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute and honor the life of Serge B. Hadji, Esq. He passed away on March 10, 2024, at his home in Athens, Greece, with his wife of 50 years, Yanna, by his side. He was 81.

Serge was a devoted husband; proud father to his three boys Alexios, Philip, and Andreas; an esteemed lawyer; trustee to his alma mater, Anatolia College; mentor; and advocate for Greece, Cyprus, and the unwavering principle that the rule of law be the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy. He was so much more than that to all that were fortunate enough to know and love him.

Serge's life story is a quintessential American immigration story. Serge was born in Thessaloniki, Greece, on September 25, 1942, and immigrated to the United States in 1960. He graduated college from the University of Buffalo, received a law degree from the Detroit College of Law, and obtained a masters in law from New York University Law School. He started his career with Rogers Hoge & Hills, a Park Avenue law firm, and went on to become senior counsel at TRW Inc., a Fortune 100 multinational company headquartered in Cleveland, OH. Throughout his legal career, he was a proud member and contributor to the legal community through his involvement with the American Bar Association-- Section on Antitrust Law; the Association of the Bar of the City of New York--secretary, Trademark and Unfair Competition Committee, 1977- 1980--and the International Trademark Association--member of the board, 1988-1991. He also was an adjunct professor at New York University School of Continuing Education in Law and Taxation and a lecturer at Temple University Law School in Athens, Greece. He was a member of the New York bar and was a New York lawyer through and through, maintaining his membership until he passed away.

Serge was a giant in the Greek-American world. In 1974, Serge cofounded the Panhellenic (Emergency) Committee of New York, one of the grassroots committees that sprung up throughout the U.S. to fill the political vacuum in the Greek-American community following Turkey's invasion of Cyprus on July 20, 1974. From his perspective as a key participant and keen observer of the intricacies of this issue, he later edited a book chronicling this movement, ``The Rule of Law Lobby: Grassroots Mobilization and the U.S. Arms Embargo on

Turkey-1974-1978.'' In addition to protesting vociferously and providing humanitarian assistance, the Greek-American community gradually coalesced into a lobby under the newly unfurled banner of the ``Rule of Law.'' ``The Rule of Law Lobby'' has been hailed as a seminal book which splendidly portrays the rise and evolution of an American lobby that greatly influenced U.S. policy in the region. Serge remained active with Greek-American issues throughout his life, largely through the American Hellenic Institute, including editing the two-volume series, ``Doing Business in Greece: A Legal and Practical Reference Service.''

Serge honorably served on the board of trustees of Anatolia College in Thessaloniki, Greece, for 50 years, since 1974, becoming the first alumnus trustee from Thessaloniki on the board. It was at Anatolia where the head of the school mentored Serge, even long after he graduated. In recognition of his mentor, in 2008, Serge edited a book documenting his mentor's legacy, ``The Morning Cometh: 45 Years with Anatolia College.'' It was through Anatolia that Serge embodied the leadership and mentorship principles passed down to him and applied his legal skills toward nonprofit governance. Serge also mentored countless new trustees, presidents, and, most important to him, graduates.

A devout Greek Orthodox Christian, Serge could eruditely explain the faith's practice, iconography, and history.

Serge is survived by his wife Yanna; his children Alexios, Philip, and Andreas; and his grandchildren Alexander, George, and Philip. May we all live to remember him.

Mr. President, I have the privilege to speak briefly about my friend, Bishop Larry Brandon, who opened up the Senate with prayer. I feel like, with all these pastors--you and Chaplain Barry Black and Bishop Brandon--he is also a remarkable man who has a church in Shreveport, LA, and also in Oakland, CA.

I say: How do you do it?

He goes: Every other week.

He regards his ministry not just to the soul but also to the body. I say that as a doctor, recognizing how the two can be intertwined.

When I first met him, he was about twice as big as he is now. We saw each other at breakfast, and I said: Bishop, you lost weight, man?

He said: I am glad you noticed. Eight-five pounds. If you don't notice 85 pounds, boy, are you blind.

He has done that not only for his own health but for the physical, emotional, and spiritual health of his congregation.

We know I am a doctor. At times, people slip off that diet. We are in Louisiana; so you always have good food.

He says: We never condemn; we never condone. We just always support.

I am speaking about his ministry to their health and also his ministry to their spirit. When we in this Congress adopt that--we don't condemn each other, we don't condone bad behavior, but we work together to support one another for the betterment of our physical, our emotional, and spiritual health--that is a tribute to our bishop.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I am here to talk about flood insurance, an issue facing Louisiana, and, I am sorry to say, an issue now facing the Presiding Officer's State.

Floods can occur anywhere--for example, on the top of a mountaintop. People don't realize that, but you have this gully going down from the top to the bottom, and if it gets a big rain--boom--going down from the top of that mountain, you will have a flood.

And that has occurred, unfortunately, in California. I spent several years in Southern California, and I can relate to that.

But it happens regularly in my State. Now, why in my State? Well, folks think of hurricanes as wind, rain, and lightning, but one of the greatest threats is actually the risk of flooding.

And these floods can destroy homes, businesses and leave them--if they don't destroy them right away, they can leave them moist. And when it is moist, it begins to rot from the inside. And homes that families have lived in for over 50 years that have never flooded before can become unlivable.

So if you come down to Louisiana or California or Pennsylvania or West Virginia or other things, and you ask folks in the bottom of a riverbed, for example, if a flood can upend their life, they will say emphatically yes.

So if we know the answer is an emphatic yes, then what can Congress do about it, if anything? Well, we have a mechanism to address it, the National Flood Insurance Program which currently ensures 4.7 million American families. It is a Federal program, and we are the ones that can change it to make it more reliable, more affordable, more sustainable.

But the challenge is that it is a tough topic. A lot of folks in Congress just don't understand the issue. And so we need to have the understanding, but then we also need the political will.

Now, this has just kind of--boom--up, up, up in urgency. The Federal Emergency Management Agency recently implemented a new risk assessment called Risk Rating 2.0. Now Risk Rating 2.0 affects Louisiana, the Gulf Coast--frankly, all coasts and anyplace where there is a river or stream that can overflow, and it particularly affects folks who are lower income.

Sometimes people say that the flood insurance program is a program for rich people. Not true; 62 percent of all NFIP policies are in parishes or counties where the median household income is below the national average of $54,000. And truth be told that, as we again just saw in California--what you think of as a desert State--flooding can occur in any State.

So if we look here, here are NFIP claims by cost: 44 out of 50 States have had over $50 million of National Flood Insurance Program claims from 1978 to 2021. And there are only 6 States that have less than $50 million in claims; 13 States have had over a billion in damage, and they are all over the map. It is Virginia--and not just the coastal states--it is Missouri; it is the States on the gulf; it is California; it is going up the northeast. This is geographically distributed.

And, by the way, these are the States hit hardest, but they are not the only States. Every State has had at least an NFIP claim somewhere, sometime, because every State is affected by flooding.

Now, the way the program is currently being conducted, however, is putting it into what is called an actuarial death spiral. Rising premiums mean fewer can afford the insurance. So let's set this up. Right now, you have people at high risk; and the way insurance works is it spreads it over plans over homes that have a lower risk. But if you raise everybody's premiums dramatically, the people who are at lowest risk will drop their coverage. And so you have the same amount of risk, but now it is concentrated upon a smaller pool of homes. That concentration raises the rates even more. And those who are the lowest risk in that pool drop their insurance, which further concentrates. That is called an actuarial death spiral.

I hate to put it this way, but it is visual. Think of when you flush the toilet and it begins to spin, and then that spin goes down. Well, that spinning is that death spiral, and the water in the pool gets smaller and smaller and smaller until it is gone and there is no one left who can afford the cost for the insurance, and it ceases to exist.

Now, by the way, this is true of every insurance program. I am describing the National Flood Insurance Program, but this actuarial death spiral is actually known to be just an insurance--that is just how insurance works. If your pool gets too small, risk too concentrated, the whole thing goes away.

But the problem is, what is happening to the National Flood Insurance Program ignores the fact that the program is actually a bargain. And this is the real problem: When I have telephone townhalls and meeting with constituents, they tell me that their property--their property insurance, their casualty insurance--if you add that to their flood insurance, it is now more than their mortgage. So they are making the tough decision: Do I either leave my home, or do I drop my coverage?

So let's just talk a little bit more about Risk Rating 2.0. First, recognize that this rate hike that we are currently going under could have been stopped with the stroke of a President's pen. Either President Biden or President Trump could have told FEMA to delay or cancel the implementation.

In 2019, my staff worked with and my office worked with the Trump administration to successfully delay the implementation because of concerns about how FEMA was calculating costs. The concern remains, but the Biden administration has decided to go forward, ignoring the concerns of people in Louisiana and elsewhere.

The results are that about 900,000 people have dropped their insurance because they cannot afford it--900,000. That is the beginning of this death spiral we spoke of.

Now, there is some promising news. The Banking Committee recently had a hearing on the National Flood Insurance Program that I put forward, and we got excellent input. There is a consensus that no family in America should be forced to move because of unaffordable flood insurance premiums, that flood insurance premiums should remain affordable, accessible, and accountable to the taxpayer and sustainable to the future.

So my challenge to my colleagues: Designate somebody on your staff. This is a complicated topic. But whether a Californian, a Virginian, a Missourian, you name a State that is in yellow of some tint, ask somebody on your staff to become familiar with the flood insurance program. Then let's come together and move the legislation that will reform it.

The first issue is to gain understanding, then the second issue is to have the political will. If we do this, we can maintain a program which has meant so much to Americans in every State--but certainly in 43 out of 50 States--to enable them to maintain the coverage to protect them should their home flood, that they would be able to build back.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following letter be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent--

Madam President, this week, the HELP Committee--the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee--will be holding a vote on the renomination of Julie Su for Secretary of Labor. At the direction of the chair, this committee vote is taking place behind closed doors, without a public hearing, and with no opportunity to hear from Ms. Su directly.

It is important to note that the committee is voting on Ms. Su's nomination for the second time. Her first nomination failed and was returned to the White House after the majority leader declined to give her a vote on the Senate floor when it was clear that based upon bipartisan opposition, she would not be confirmed.

During Ms. Su's first nomination hearing for the Secretary of Labor last April, the committee addressed a variety of concerns with her past record in California and her tenure at the Department of Labor.

Since then, concerns over her leadership at the Department of Labor have grown, and they warrant further review by the committee.

Earlier this month, I sent a formal request to the HELP Committee chair to hold a public hearing on Ms. Su's second nomination so members of the committee can discuss concerns directly with Ms. Su. Unfortunately, the chair denied our request and, instead, is holding a vote on Ms. Su's nomination behind closed doors, without a full public hearing. This is unacceptable.

It has been almost a year since Ms. Su's nomination hearing. It is important that we examine the many issues that have arisen since then and get an explanation over those serious concerns in her year of being an Acting Secretary.

She has built a troubling record as the Acting DOL Secretary, implementing policies that promote large labor unions at the expense of workers' freedoms and economic growth.

Currently, Ms. Su is overseeing the implementation of DOL's worker classification rule, dismantling the gig economy, and jeopardizing the ability of 27 million Americans who choose to work as independent contractors.

Additionally, the Department of Labor has also proposed a new overtime rule, dramatically increasing the overtime pay threshold by 55 percent, which will decrease job opportunities and raise prices for the American family.

The Department of Labor has also released a new policy that allows an outside union official to influence a workplace inspection even when that workplace is not unionized. The union is not there, but they can influence the workplace inspection.

These are all terribly problematic actions taken by an Acting Secretary who lacks Senate confirmation. The Biden administration's attempt to circumvent the advice and consent provision of the Constitution by leveraging Ms. Su's previous position as Deputy Secretary brings these actions into legal question. And, by the way, there are also serious concerns about Ms. Su's ability to manage the Department of Labor.

Under her leadership, there has been a 50-percent increase in illegal child labor since 2022. There are alarming reports that senior DOL officials repeatedly ignored warnings, downplaying the exploitation of migrant children for cheap labor. When the committee asked Ms. Su to explain DOL's failure to address child labor violations, she repeatedly failed to comply with congressional oversight.

Additionally, DOL has struggled to process H-2B guest worker visas, crucial for employers that experience workforce shortages based on the season. These delays are already having significant impact on these employers and, again, leading to rising prices on families.

The American people deserve a competent Secretary at the Department of Labor. As outlined in the Constitution, the Senate is still supposed to vote on whether to confirm Ms. Su. HELP Committee members need the ability--the opportunity--to raise their concerns to Ms. Su and get answers.

Nomination hearings are not just checking a box; they are a crucial part of the process. Every Senator needs the information revealed in hearings to evaluate and decide how they will vote on a nomination.

The chair's decision to not hold a public hearing on Ms. Su is unacceptable, shows a lack of transparency from the majority, and undermines the committee's constitutional duty to advise and consent on Presidential nominees.

No one is above accountability, especially an unconfirmed yet acting Cabinet-level nominee with massive influence over our Nation's economy.

As ranking member of the HELP Committee, I will continue to lead Senate Republicans in holding Ms. Su accountable. We need to ensure that she fairly enforces our Nation's labor laws.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the scheduled rollcall vote begin now.

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

Mr. President, Abraham Lincoln, when he opened up the Gettysburg Address, said: Few will little note, nor long remember what I say here today.

As I rise as the Super Bowl is about to begin, I realize that most people are looking for a view of Taylor Swift and not listening to us. But nonetheless, I feel compelled to come because we are obviously considering important issues.

As we know, we are currently discussing a national security bill that would assist Israel after the October 7 attack and resist the efforts of Putin and the Chinese Communist Party. But this issue, importantly, has become entwined with border security, U.S. border security.

The way things work--and we all know this in the Chamber but just to specify--if any bill is going to be signed into law, it is because you have good policy, you have good politics, and it has good process. If you don't have those three things on a big bill, then something is not going through.

I would like to talk about that policy, politics, process dynamic here and how the process is being used to defeat the passage of good policy. By the way, it is that process which confuses folks, but I will get to that. Let me just first discuss a little bit of the policy.

I am speaking as a Republican, a conservative Republican, and I can say that almost all Republicans want to confront the Chinese Communist Party. We understand around the world that the Chinese Communist Party is doing its best to undermine the interest of the United States, turning a blind eye as fentanyl is imported into our country, with 60,000 to 100,000 people in any given year dying from overdoses. We understand that the Chinese Communist Party takes our industry, subsidizes theirs with that industry that moves over there, and they take our jobs. Then they pollute the atmosphere, and it blows over to the United States. This is a geopolitical rival, and the Chinese Communist Party has turned their eyes upon Taiwan.

Most Republicans--all Republicans--want to confront China--or so they say. Most Republicans want to keep Vladimir Putin from killing Americans. We understand he is trying to kill Americans. If anybody watching now or later wants to dispute that fact, just Google ``Wagner Group''--Wagner Group, that group of Russians, that military group attacking U.S. soldiers in the Middle East. You go there, you are going to find an article. You can find a radio transcript of them attacking our troops. We slaughtered them. That is not the point. They intended to slaughter us. Russian troops attacked Americans. Russians are in Venezuela. In Venezuela, they have helped that become a narco-state in which drugs are being imported to the United States. And Russian troops are trying to hurt us around the world. Most Republicans, if not all, say they are against that.

Lastly, let's talk briefly about support of Israel. Republicans support Israel, and after October 7, in which, unprovoked, Hamas went in with those atrocities--killing pregnant women, slaughtering infants, killing the elderly; not going after combatants, not going after the Israeli Defense Forces, but going after Israelis at a peace concert, at a kibbutz where a group of Israelis lived who are committed to reconciliation with Palestine. That kibbutz was specifically targeted.

Republicans say: We support Israel. In fact, it is hard for a Republican not to support the three things I just listed.

So we have a policy before us which accomplishes that. It is not perfect. No bill comes through here that is perfect. Anybody can come up here with a laundry list on any bill and you can cherry-pick and find something that is bad with it. That is just the biggest game in town around here. But the point is that it overall accomplishes the goals we wish to accomplish if you want to keep Russians from killing Americans, push back on the CCP, and support our ally Israel.

Now, can we do more? Absolutely. There is a mess at the southern border. One of my colleagues, Lindsey Graham, spoke earlier about a hole in the fence that the United States doesn't fix, the Biden administration doesn't fix, and ``60 Minutes'' had a documentary of them just pouring through this 4-foot-wide hole.

So we know there is a mess at the southern border. Wouldn't it be great if we could put an amendment on this good policy to support our allies that will likewise control the southern border?

The politics of controlling the border are really good. Republicans want to control the southern border. The politics to support Israel by and large are good on the Republican side.

But the politics maybe are not as good, and there are some who, frankly, are not sure they want to support Israel, they don't think they really want to combat Putin, and they are not sure they want to support Taiwan, but they don't really want to say that. So instead, they say: Well, there is nothing in there about the southern border, and so I am not going to support this particular legislation.

That makes the politics work out.

I am being principled, by golly. It doesn't support the southern border. It doesn't stop those illegals coming across. So therefore, I am going to tank the whole bill.

That politics kind of works for them.

So our policy is good on supporting our allies. We would like to have better

policy to support the southern border. But the politics of not supporting our allies are lousy, so if you don't want to support our allies, you just say that you don't have anything about the southern border, and so therefore, you are not going to support our allies.

It is getting a little confusing. I apologize. But the people who are trying to execute this are relying on that confusion.

How would you go about doing this? If you don't want the bad politics of not supporting Israel and you would like to have better policy--but wait a second. If you get the better policy, then you have to support Israel and confront Ukraine and China. You use the process.

Remember, we have to have policy, politics, and process. This is where the use of process comes in to give you cover on the politics as you work to defeat good policy.

Now, again, all those folks back home, reaching for the Doritos, looking for Taylor Swift on TV or getting tired of seeing Taylor Swift on TV, are saying: Process. Process. What is process?

Well, anyone who has gone to a PTA meeting, a school board meeting, any sort of meeting has seen process at work. There is an agenda. If you want to be heard, you raise your hand, maybe get on a list. No one person or one group is allowed to dominate theoretically, but all get to contribute. In that mutual contribution, you come up with a product that is actually better for the whole. That is the way process is supposed to work. It works whether you are at a PTA meeting, a school board meeting, or in the U.S. Senate.

But that process can be misused. Frankly, anyone who has been to a PTA meeting kind of knows it can be misused. So how could the process be misused in this set of circumstances? Well, remember, the only way we make this bill better is if we are allowed to put in an amendment that controls the situation at the southern border. But if you use the process to prevent an amendment from being placed, you never get that amendment; you never improve the policy; you never allow something good to happen to control the influx of illegal immigrants across the southern border. And because you never get that amendment, your excuse of voting against the policy to support Israel, confronting Putin, and the CCP is airtight--because somehow it doesn't address the problem at the southern border. But wait a second. You can only do that with an amendment, and the process is being used to prevent that amendment from being placed.

Now, if it seems like things are going back and forth, that is kind of the intent. How do we confuse the American people? How do I keep my politics straight? Because I want my politics to support my allies, but I really don't want to support them. I don't want to say that verbally, that I don't want to support them, I don't want to confront Putin. The way I can do it is prevent an amendment, but I can't say that I am preventing an amendment, so I have to use the process to prevent the amendment.

My children and I used to play a game called Opposite Day. They were young. At some point, they got too old for the game.

They would say something like: Daddy, I want ice cream.

I would say: Well, today is Opposite Day. You don't get ice cream if you want it.

Well, I don't want ice cream.

Well, Opposite Day is off. You get ice cream after all.

You know, it would be kind of this going back and forth before I would finally buy them the ice cream.

It is kind of like what is happening here. People are saying they don't want something or saying they want something when all their actions show they don't. The actions are opposite of that which they hope to achieve, but indeed, they are achieving what they actually want.

But that is kind of--I won't go any further with opposite day. It is using the process to prevent an amendment from being placed because placing the amendment would therefore remove the obstacle to passing the policy which they really are opposed to.

So let's quickly review. If you don't want to support Israel, if you don't want to confront Putin, if you don't want to confront the Chinese Communist Party and you would rather block this bill from supporting them by saying there is nothing to control the southern border, but you prevent an amendment from being passed that would control the southern border, then your politics are straight.

Am I frustrated? I am incredibly frustrated. I am frustrated because I feel like this is a fundamental dishonesty with the American people.

By the way, I am for the policy of controlling the southern border. There are drugs and people coming across that border, and I want an amendment process whereby we can make it tougher and harder for those cartels to ship those folks. Give us an ability to have that amendment. But I also want to support Israel, confront Putin, and I also want to keep the CCP from taking Taiwan for many reasons I could go into.

By the way, I may be wrong. I may be totally wrong; in which case, I will owe an apology to some folks. But if all of a sudden it breaks up and we can have an amendment--an amendment that maybe makes it just a little harder for a cartel to traffic people and to traffic drugs--I will be so pleased. I will be so pleased that I was wrong.

But on this day when folks are hopefully thinking about the Super Bowl and more pleasant things, I can't help but say that we in the Senate owe it to the American people to both be honest to them and to get something done.

This is my plea to my colleagues: Let's be honest, and let's get something done.

I yield the floor.