Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that I be permitted to speak for up to 40 minutes and Senator Peters be permitted to speak up to 3 minutes prior to the scheduled rollcall vote.

Mr. President, with me today is one of my colleagues from my Senate office, Mr. Matt Turner.

Mr. President, not long ago, on February 23, in fact, an article appeared in one of my State's local newspapers. If it had appeared on the opinion page where it belonged, I wouldn't be saying a word because everybody in America has the right to their opinion. Instead, it appeared in the news section as a purportedly objective news article.

In this article some reporter said, ``The state'' referring to the State of Louisiana, ``The state has already banned transgender young people from receiving gender-affirming medical care.''

That is not true, and I want to spend a few minutes responding to this inaccurate statement in the news as opposed to the opinion section of one of my newspapers.

It is very hard to be a parent today, and it is even harder to be a kid. Between social media and cell phones, this generation is growing up in a way that we could not have imagined a few decades ago. Nowhere is this clearer than the issue of gender confusion among our children.

Children today are facing an onslaught of identity-obsessed activism. Well before a child learns the difference between adjectives and verbs, activists in many government schools are teaching their pre-K students lessons on transgender pronouns--pronouns like ``ze'' and ``zir.'' Public libraries are hosting ``drag queen story time'' for ``children of all ages.''

The American Federation of Teachers--one of our largest, if not the largest, national teachers unions--actually runs a website with a lesson on how teachers can help children hide their transgender status from their parents. I kid you not. TikTok essentially functions as a ``how to transition'' guide book.

The issue of gender has morphed from a topic that only involved the personal decisions of private adults into a movement--a movement that seeks to inject questions about gender and sexuality into every aspect of a child's life with or without parental approval. In fact, parents who disagree with the notion that adults should be immersing young children in discussions about gender and sexuality fear being smeared as bigots. In more horrifying examples, parents risk losing custody of their children for refusing to adopt a particular--usually a pro- transgender--ideology.

It is not new for activists to target kids with their political rhetoric--unfortunately, we see it every day in America--but the gender and sexuality agenda goes far beyond the usual policy disputes that we see on a regular basis here in Washington. We are talking about giving children irreversible medical treatments before they can even understand the consequences of those medical procedures. I want to be very clear here. Eighty-five percent of the children who express some confusion about their gender--85 percent of the kids who say they are confused about their gender will outgrow it by the time they finish as adolescents. Now, that is just a fact. We have no idea, unfortunately, which 8-year-olds are going to outgrow their gender confusion, but we know it will be most of them--85 percent. Yet some activists in this country, particularly at Planned Parenthood, want to put kids under the knife or pump them full of hormones before these minors have a chance to grasp the consequences, and it is happening throughout our country.

Like with a frog in a pot, gender activists have gradually turned up the heat, and we have all seen it. Now the United States is boiling over with some of the most radical pediatric gender policies on Earth-- on Earth. To understand just how extreme these policies are, I need to discuss a few of these so-called treatments and how they are implemented today.

Today, many activists believe that the only way to respond to a child with gender confusion is by affirming whatever the child says about his or her gender, agree with the kids in all cases. Activists warn parents--we hear it all the time--not to question their child's gender proclamation. If a first grade boy tells his parents on a Tuesday that he is a girl, these activists say parents are just supposed to agree with the child until the child changes his mind on a Thursday.

Now, if you have ever raised a child, first, thank you, but if you have ever raised a child, there was probably a point during which your child told you that he or she was--I don't know--a

lion, and that child would belt out a roar just to prove it. But I am guessing--just a wild guess--that if that happened to you with your child, you didn't call animal control and say: Hit him with a stun gun, and take him back to the zoo. Why? Because you knew he was a child.

We can acknowledge that gender dysphoria is a real and difficult condition. Let me say that again. We can acknowledge that gender dysphoria is a real and difficult condition for a small subset of our population. At the same time, we can understand that it is foolish and dangerous--and, like a rock, only dumber--to blindly affirm whatever a child tells you about their identity, gender or otherwise. If a 13- year-old kid tells you he is a NASCAR driver, you don't give him the keys to your sedan. He is a kid. She is a kid. Yet gender activists not only encourage parents in all cases, without question, to affirm their children's gender confusion, they also pressure parents to subject those kids to life-altering surgeries and life-altering hormone treatments--puberty blockers.

Puberty blockers are often the starting point for these activists. Puberty blockers are hormone-based injections, and sometimes they are implants. They are given to kids in our country today who are as young as 8 years old. The purpose of a puberty blocker is to delay the onset of puberty. These drugs can prevent breast development and menstruation in kids--in girls. They can cause genital--or, rather, prevent genital growth in boys. They can also inflict lasting damage on a child's bone density. They can stunt bone growth, and they can harm future fertility. Those are all medically proven facts.

The hormones used in puberty blockers are known as--let me say this carefully--gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs. ``Gonadotropin- releasing hormone analogs'' is the medical term. These are also the same hormones used to chemically castrate sex offenders. These hormones that some doctors are giving our kids are the same hormones used to chemically castrate sex offenders. I didn't misspeak there. They give confused kids drugs designed to castrate adults.

The FDA hasn't approved the use of puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria, but nonetheless some doctors have been prescribing these hormones off label to kids. In some parts of the country, children don't even need a formal psychiatric diagnosis of gender dysphoria before receiving puberty blockers.

According to one estimate, from 2017 to 2021, the number of children prescribed puberty blockers--chemical castration for boys--increased by 120 percent. At least 4,700 children underwent treatments during that period.

Most States, as the Presiding Officer knows, require parental consent before they give children the same drug they use to castrate pedophiles but not all States. For example, in Oregon, children as young as 15 years old can receive Medicaid-funded--taxpayer funded--puberty blockers and sex change surgery without ever asking their parents, without ever telling their parents. In other words, taxpayers help the State fund gender transitions in children while keeping it a secret from their mothers and their fathers. That same 15-year-old likely needs a signed permission slip to go on a field trip to pet llamas at the local zoo, but these kids can pump themselves full of life-altering hormones without mentioning it to Mom or Dad.

If the child has already begun puberty, the next option that some radicals recommend is what they call cross-sex hormones--cross-sex hormones. These drugs begin physically changing the child to resemble the opposite gender. Young girls are given testosterone. This increases their muscle development. The testosterone lowers their voices; it broadens their jaw lines; and it creates coarse body hair. Young boys take estrogen. They are given estrogen. The estrogen shrinks their testicles, diminishes their sex drive, and it redistributes fat to their hips and their breasts.

According to the Mayo Clinic, these changes usually cannot be undone; they are permanent. Boys who take estrogen often become infertile. They also risk blood clots, heart problems, and strokes. Girls who take testosterone also often become infertile. Cross-sex hormones can permanently hinder a person's sexual interest or function as well.

It is undeniable--undeniable--that the decision to use cross-sex hormones can change a child's entire life. Yet Planned Parenthood offers cross-sex hormones to children as young as 16. Planned Parenthood even brags that individuals can begin cross-sex hormone treatment--I am quoting; this is what Planned Parenthood says--``the same day as your first visit.'' No letter from a mental health provider is required. Come on down and get the drug.

Children can begin taking cross-sex hormones at age 13. Thirteen- year-olds can't even drive, for God's sake. They can't get a tattoo. They can't see an R-rated movie. Are we supposed to believe that a 13- year-old can make an informed decision about whether he or she wants to have children or whether he or she should risk their ability to function sexually with their future spouse? No child--no child--is mature enough to make that decision, so no child should be able to opt into cross-sex hormones.

The surgeries that activists are pushing on our children are even more disturbing. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health--this is a group known for its support of pediatric transgender policies--has said that girls as young as 15 should be able to get double mastectomies to remove their breasts. By age 17, this group that purportedly cares about kids says that boys should be allowed to receive vaginoplasties.

In a vaginoplasty, surgeons remove a boy's penis; they remove the child's testicles; and they remove the child's scrotum. Then the boy's remaining genital tissue is stitched together to create something that mimics a vaginal canal. If the boy doesn't have enough spare tissue to complete the procedure, the doctor may slice a skin graft from his abdomen or his thigh. In other words, the doctor cuts up healthy skin, leaving significant scarring, just to finish the vaginoplasty. Some boys never regain sensation in their reconstructed genital area.

These medical extremists also offer a similar procedure to young girls. It is called a phalloplasty. During a phalloplasty, doctors carve off skin and veins, often from a young girl's wrist and thigh, to create a fake penis. The surgery is very complex. It is very risky. It often results in serious complications--complications, frankly, so disturbing that they will make you go weak in the knees. Because complications during phalloplasty happen so frequently, even the radical World Professional Association for Transgender Health does not recommend phalloplasty in girls under 18, but some States allow it. Some States allow it.

These procedures mutilate and they sterilize America's sons and daughters. Doctors cut out healthy organs to build a pile of flesh that may never regain full sensation or function properly, and it is barbaric. No child has the psychological maturity, no child has the emotional maturity to make this life-altering decision.

Now, one would think that if adults are willing to chop up a child's body and pump him or her full of sterilizing hormones, there must be a good reason for it. If you ask many gender activists, they will tell you that gender confusion is a matter of life or death.

Now, to be clear, there are higher suicide rates among people who identify as transgender, higher than among the general population. Gender activists know this, and they misuse those statistics. That is why they often ask parents who are worried about the extreme gender treatments--they will say to a parent: Would you rather have a dead son or a live daughter?

Have you heard that? It scares parents half to death, and that is on purpose.

What you won't hear these gender activists ask is whether these extreme measures actually improve a child's mental health. They don't ask that question because they don't like the answer. They know the answer, but they don't like it.

Studies show that cross-sex hormones and reassignment surgeries have little to no effect on the long-term mental health of folks with gender dysphoria. A study was published in the American Journal of Psychiatry. It found that there was no significant reduction in mental health issues or suicidal ideation among adults following hormone treatments. This study also

``demonstrated no advantage of surgery''--``no advantage of surgery''-- as it relates to reducing anxiety, to reducing depression, or to reducing suicidal thoughts--no advantage to the supposedly lifesaving cross-sex treatments.

Activists are mutilating and sterilizing children, and they don't even have a good reason for it. Still, thousands of children in the United States are receiving these treatments. A report from Reuters found that at least 4,700 American children took puberty blockers from 2017 to 2021. More than 14,700 children took cross-sex hormones. From 2019 to 2021, nearly 800 girls received double mastectomies. And that only includes girls whose insurance covered the procedure.

And I am worried this is only the tip of the iceberg. The population of people diagnosed with gender dysphoria, including adults, by the way, increased in every State except South Dakota from 2018 to 2022. In Louisiana, my State, the population of people diagnosed with gender dysphoria has increased by 72 percent in 4 short years.

If we look exclusively at gender dysphoria among children, the population of transgender children in the United States nearly doubled between 2017 and 2020. In Louisiana, 13- to 17-year-olds are nearly three times more likely to say they identify as transgender than adults aged 25 to 64. From 2018 to 2022, children's share of the total--often, of course, self-reported--transgender population in the United States increased from 17.5 percent to 20.4 percent. And that is over the entire population.

Now, here is a fact that should make everyone who cares about our society's more vulnerable members stop and think. A significant portion of these often confused children struggled with severe autism and mental illness. A study out of the United Kingdom found that 35 percent of children receiving care at the nation's transgender youth clinic suffered from moderate to severe autism. Children diagnosed as transgender are up to 13 times more likely to have ADHD, depression, or anxiety than nontransgender children. They are also more than four times more likely to have bipolar disorder than the general population.

These kids who say they have gender dysphoria face enough challenges without gender activists rushing them into irreversible treatments-- cutting off their breasts, removing their penises--based on what statistically will probably be temporary confusion.

Young girls appear to be driving the surge, quite frankly, in adolescent gender dysphoria. One 2022 study found that girls are up to 7.1 times more likely to present with gender dysphoria than boys, and I think we know that, just as a practical matter.

In the United Kingdom, once again, the National Health Service--the NHS--reported that it had 250 gender dysphoria referrals about a decade ago. Most of them were boys. By 2022, the NHS reported 5,000 gender dysphoria referrals, two-thirds of whom were girls.

That is why many fear that gender dysphoria has become a social contagion among young girls. In the same way that groups of girls developed eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia in the 1990s and early 2000s, girls today are developing gender dysphoria in groups as well. One key difference, though, exists. One key difference between disordered eating in the 1990s and 2000s and the gender dysphoria we are seeing today is that educators and policymakers didn't blindly affirm eating disorders. Even today, we are not so foolish. Even today, doctors wouldn't give an anorexic teenager Ozempic or staple her stomach because she thinks she looks fat. We wouldn't do that. Yet activists rush to inject girls with irreversible cross-sex hormones and inflict double mastectomies on them, all in the quest--all in the quest--to affirm their gender confusion.

Thank God, other countries are proving themselves wiser than America. Thank God. The United Kingdom, Sweden, Luxembourg, Finland, Denmark, and Belgium have all prohibited sex reassignment surgeries for children, for minors. Before doctors can prescribe children cross-sex hormones, many European countries require years of extensive documentation from a panel of psychiatrists, a panel of pediatricians, a panel of endocrinologists.

In the United States, however, Mr. President, children can access irreversible hormone treatments without so much as a second opinion from doctors. A former caseworker from the Washington University Transgender Center at St. Louis Children's Hospital--that is the foremost pediatric transgender medical center in the United States-- said some kids at that facility were eligible for cross-sex hormones after a single visit--one visit--to a therapist.

Federally funded insurance programs won't pay for a woman to elect to tie her tubes, not until she is 21 years old, and most insurance companies require a 30-day waiting period because it is important that a woman is certain before she consents to her own sterilization. Yet many activists are comfortable allowing children to take sterilizing medications at 13 years of age after a single appointment with a therapist--all because adults are supposed to trust children when they claim they are a different gender.

I am very thankful to say that Louisiana is full of compassion and common sense, and we don't do that. We know that this agenda is dangerous, and we know it is outrageous. And so does the United Kingdom.

The United Kingdom used to have a similarly misguided policy until one brave woman came forward with her story: Keira Bell. Keira Bell was 15 years old when she first attended the Tavistock clinic, which was then the UK's transgender youth clinic. Ms. Bell had a pretty rough childhood. Her mother struggled with alcoholism. She regularly faced bullies at school. And in her own words, she said: I was ``very mentally ill.'' And she struggled with depression.

Ms. Bell attended just a few appointments at the Tavistock Hospital before they put her on puberty blockers. Shortly thereafter, she began cross-sex hormones, and she eventually received a double mastectomy.

A few years went by. By age 22, Ms. Bell realized she regretted these changes, but the damage was done. The Tavistock clinic took her breasts; the Tavistock clinic lowered her voice; the Tavistock clinic jeopardized her fertility--all before she even understood the consequences of those treatments. She was a kid.

Her story horrified the people of the United Kingdom. Ms. Bell brought a claim against the Tavistock clinic to argue that kids were not psychologically mature enough to make irreversible medical decisions. The NIH investigated, and it found that the clinic had put young people ``at considerable risk'' of long-term mental distress. And the UK Government then deemed that the treatments Tavistock offered were not a ``safe or viable long-term option,'' and the Tavistock clinic no longer exists today. The NHS shut them down.

There is a growing population of young people like Ms. Bell who regret receiving irreversible treatments when they were kids. They are generally known as detransitioners. A study out of Sweden followed adults who received treatment for gender dysphoria from 1960 to 2010. It found that roughly 2 percent of those in the study detransitioned. A new study in 2022, however, found that roughly 10 percent of people who received treatment detransitioned. And that number may be growing.

Given the nature of these types of studies on regret, we won't know for many years what percent of the boys and girls receiving irreversible treatments today will regret it when they enter adulthood. We just don't know. But if the 10 percent figure holds, gender activists will have wrongfully mutilated or sterilized more than 1,500 American children between 2017 and 2021 alone. And there is good reason to believe that the rate of detransitioning will be much higher than current studies indicate because the majority of children who present with gender dysphoria at a young age outgrow it. Eighty-five percent outgrow it.

A 2017 study published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism found that 85 percent of children with gender dysphoria outgrew it during adolescence. And you know what, Mr. President, this figure is only surprising if you have never met a kid. Children change their minds often. Duh. One week, they are obsessed with dolphins. The next week, they love race cars. A kid can morph from the sweetest boy you have ever seen into a

honey badger within the course of one Sunday morning church service, and we have all had that experience, and that is normal.

Kids don't typically have a mature sense of self or impulse control, and that is why God gave them parents. But today, if a little girl has a week where she thinks she is a boy because she hates wearing dresses and loves to climb trees with her brothers, some activists think we ought to pump her full of puberty blockers that destroy her bone health so she feels ``affirmed'' in her decision to play cops and robbers with the boys.

Secretary Hillary Clinton once famously said it takes a village to raise a child. What she meant was it takes a Federal Government to raise a child. No, it doesn't. Kids need parents to succeed, and parents have the right to raise their children according to their values. Parents are here to protect kids from danger, from the kids' own immaturity, and from misguided government agents.

And contrary to what these activists say, there are some sane ways to treat children who struggle with gender confusion. Many doctors in Europe and the United States recognize that permanently maiming and chemically castrating confused children is bone-deep, down-to-the- marrow stupid. That is why many physicians have adopted the practice of ``watchful waiting.'' That is a treatment plan--we offer it in Louisiana--whereby doctors and psychologists wait to implement any medical treatment to children with gender dysphoria while watching to ensure that they have all the responsible mental health support that they need.

As I mentioned earlier, 85 percent of children will outgrow their dysphoria during puberty. Watchful waiting ensures that the child is well supported and protected from irreversible physical and psychological damage.

Some activists, though, don't want to let doctors wait, and a lot of those activists work in the Biden administration. In 2021, the Biden administration announced that it would start requiring doctors to issue hormone treatments or surgeries to transgender individuals, even if such procedures--even if such procedures--run contrary to the doctor's medical judgment or religious beliefs. And, unsurprisingly, the Biden administration has been sued over that.

It is not just doctors facing pressure to conform to the demands of gender activists. In some States, parents have lost custody of their kids for refusing to do it. Schools have fired counselors simply for wanting parents to be told about their kid's gender transition.

I am terrified that our country is mass-producing a generation of mutilated and sterilized young people because policymakers in our schools and our cities and our State capitals and Washington are too afraid to stand up and say: Enough.

And that is why, in conclusion, I am so proud of the Louisiana State Legislature. The Louisiana State Legislature passed HB648. HB648 protects Louisiana's children and supports their parents. HB648 makes it illegal to use puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery on children under the age of 18--period, full stop.

It wasn't easy to get this bill passed. Our lawmakers faced strong opposition from gender activists, and our former Governor, John Bel Edwards, vetoed the bill. But in Louisiana, we will run into hell and back to keep our kids safe, and that is why senate and house members-- Democrats and Republicans--in the Louisiana State Legislature overrode the Governor's veto. They said: No, children are children.

Congress should follow the leadership of the Louisiana State Legislature and so many European governments to ensure that parents-- not activists--have the power to make medical and moral decisions for their children. And that is why I am helping to lead the Families' Rights and Responsibilities Act, which would do that. This bill would require the Federal Government to pass the strict scrutiny test--that is the Supreme Court's toughest level of review--before it could infringe upon a parent's right.

Nothing disturbs me more than the notion that a child's upbringing should be determined by some bureaucrat rather than the child's parents, especially when those bureaucrats use the power of the government to maim children. It makes me want to throw up. It makes me want to reach for the sick bucket.

Congress must do more to protect parents and their kids from the zealots of the transgender movement and from newspaper reporters who inaccurately report the news.

I yield to my colleague Senator Peters.

Mr. President, with me today are two of my colleagues from my office, Mr. James Shea and Mr. Parker Loy. I want to thank them both for their good work.

Energy suicide, that is what I want to talk about: energy suicide. President Biden is committing energy suicide for America. Regrettably-- and I mean that--regrettably, too many times in the past 3 years and on too many issues we have seen President Biden act as a sock puppet for a faction of neosocialist Americans who don't like our country, who think our country was wicked when it was founded and that it is even more wicked today. And this faction, which President Biden has supported far too often, thinks our country must be torn down and rebuilt, and, of course, they want to be the ones to rebuild it.

Now this faction has turned its sights, with the help of President Biden, on America's hard-fought energy independence. President Biden just aided this faction in destroying America's energy independence and committing energy suicide by declaring a moratorium on new liquefied natural gas terminals in America. Apparently, President Biden's new policy is to give up our own oil and gas and buy the energy we need from countries that hate us. So those countries that hate us will have more money to buy weapons to try to kill us. Stupidity. Stupidity should hurt more. Now, I realize you can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out.

America's ability to be energy independent is one of our greatest strengths. We are a big country. We are a big, wide, open, diverse, sometimes dysfunctional, imperfect, but essentially good country. This is a country that is filled with oil and natural gas and coal and uranium and plutonium. It is filled with rare Earth minerals. It

is filled with roaring rivers and just about everything else you need to power this economy, to help families live the American dream, and we even have a little bit leftover to help our friends. American ingenuity did that. Now, Louisiana is a big part of the equation, and we are very, very proud to be a leader in energy production.

Not every country is as blessed as America. Our friends in Europe, for example, were relying on Russian oil and gas for their energy when Putin invaded Ukraine and then cut off their supply. This paralyzed many European leaders. They didn't know how they were going to run their businesses. They didn't know how they were going to heat their homes. They were totally dependent on Vladimir Putin and Russia. Fortunately, they had a friend. They had a friend in the United States of America, and we helped them out, and we kept their businesses running, and we kept their homes heated. And do you know how we did it? Do you know what we did it with? American liquefied natural gas. American liquefied natural gas.

Energy independence. One way to look at it: Energy independence is America's jackpot lottery ticket. Now, we have worked hard for it, but it is our jackpot lottery ticket. But for some reason, President Biden wants to light our winning numbers on fire. He is committing energy suicide. Did I mention that?

At every turn--at every turn--the Biden administration has taken steps to make it more difficult, more expensive, and sometimes flatout impossible to produce, transport, and sell the energy products we need to power this great country. These foolish policies--the latest of which is a moratorium on LNG--these foolish policies are killing American jobs. They are killing American jobs. They are driving up energy prices. They are jeopardizing our national security. And it needs to stop.

Natural gas is the latest victim. President Biden's Department of Energy recently announced that it was issuing a ``pause''--a ``pause''; that is Washington-speak--a ``pause'' on all new and pending permits for liquefied natural gas export projects. Can you believe that?

Liquefied natural gas--it is not complicated. America helped invent it. You just take natural gas in its gaseous form and you cool it, turn it into a liquid, put it on a ship, and you can send it all over the world. That is how we kept Europe open after Putin cut off Europe's oil and natural gas. It was a lifeline for our allies in Europe. It was a lifeline for many of our friends in West Asia.

President Biden, before this moratorium, promised our allies in Europe that they could count on us for their LNG needs, and now President Biden has chosen to stab America's LNG producers and our allies in the back--not in the front, in the back--by prohibiting the development of new LNG export permits.

This decision is going to kill dozens--dozens--of multibillion-dollar new terminal projects, including a project in Louisiana that we call Calcasieu Pass 2--$20 billion down the drain. Calcasieu Pass 2--a private project, a private sector project--cost $20 billion. It was set to be the largest LNG export terminal in the United States. It would have brought thousands of good jobs to Louisiana and to America. It would have produced energy to keep this country safe, to keep this country warm, and to help our friends. But President Biden has put all those jobs and the terminal itself in jeopardy. Why? Politics. To appease that neosocialist faction that I talked about who doesn't even like our country. Why?

But, you know, the ironic thing about this--the whack jobs who talked the President into this said: Well, we want you to help the environment.

Attacking the natural gas industry actually hurts the environment. You don't have to be an astrophysicist to figure that out. Natural gas is cleaner than coal. Natural gas is cleaner than cow chips. Natural gas is cleaner than wood. That is what millions--billions of our world's citizens are going to use if they don't have access to natural gas.

As a result of natural gas--natural gas drove a 32-percent reduction in American carbon emissions. We reduced our carbon emissions by 32 percent from 2005 to 2019, and we did it with natural gas. Also, at the same time, we helped families pay half as much to heat their homes. We cut the price of the energy needs of the average American, and we created 1.4 million new jobs. The whole world wins, not loses. The whole world wins--including the economy--when Americans produce natural gas. But President Biden is going to pause all that success because some meathead activist on TikTok doesn't like natural gas. Give me a break.

The President's LNG ruling is foolish. It demonstrates world-beating vacuity and deep, profound stupidity. It is also the most recent of many actions--I say regrettably, and I mean it--it is also the most recent of many actions that President Biden has taken to undermine America's energy security.

Before he even took office--remember the campaign?--before he even took office, President Biden said--this is what he told the American people: ``I guarantee you. I guarantee you. We're going to end fossil fuel.''

``I guarantee you. . . . We're going to end fossil fuel.''

Since his very first day in office, he has tried to do that, no matter how much it hurts Louisianians, no matter how much it hurts our allies and our friends, no matter how much it hurts the American people. Let me just give you a few examples.

On his first day, the first day he was President, President Biden blocked the Keystone XL Pipeline. It would have made transporting crude oil from our friends in Canada safer and cleaner. It would have been good for the environment. President Biden's Department of Energy reported that canceling--his own Department said this, for God's sake-- President Biden's Department of Energy said, after he made this decision, that canceling the Keystone XL Pipeline cost 59,000 American jobs, resulted in an economic loss of $1.3 billion.

Stupidity should hurt more.

Next, the Biden administration blocked all oil and natural gas drilling on Federal lands. He cut off 25 percent of America's drilling rights.

Then he placed restrictive emission caps on American coal and natural gas power plants that would force them to invest in costly new equipment or switch to hydrogen.

Then, just recently, he canceled seven oil and gas drilling leases, ending future drilling on 10 million acres--not 10,000 acres but 10 million acres--of land in northern Alaska.

Then he approved just three offshore drilling leases--the fewest number of offshore drilling sites approved by any President since leasing began in America.

Now, he is not just killing fossil fuels. He told us he was going to do it, and, by God, he is doing it. But he is not just killing fossil fuel projects; he is killing projects that are essential for wind and for solar too.

Wind and solar energy and the electric cars that President Biden wants Americans to drive all rely on batteries. Duh--that is why they call them electric. Those batteries require rare Earth minerals: cobalt, silver, copper, nickel. You can't just go to the Piggly Wiggly and buy those things; you have to mine them. We can mine those minerals in the United States, but once again, the Biden administration wants Louisianans and Americans to rely on countries that hate us for these minerals instead of mining for them at home.

For example, President Biden recently announced a ban on all copper and nickel mining in Minnesota's boundary waters--all of them. The Biden administration's EPA also proposed a rule that would allow Governors, blue State Governors--I am looking at you, California; I am looking at you, Illinois; I am looking at you, New York--that would allow blue State Governors to block rare Earth mining permits in their States. In fact, America's only cobalt mine closed on President Biden's watch.

Foolish political energy policies make life harder for Louisiana and American families. Electric prices are already up 23 percent nationwide since President Biden took office, and that is just a fact. Look it up. Go to Google. Let me say that again. Electricity prices are up 23 percent on average nationwide since President Biden took office. Gas prices are up 32 percent. They come down some, thank God, but they are still up 32 percent.

While Louisianans struggle under President Biden's energy- and job- killing policies, our adversaries can't stop winning.

Let's take Iran. Iran's oil imports are at a 5-year high. The Ayatollah in Iran--this guy made enough money to resume funding terrorist attacks on American bases. He is doing it all over the world. Do you know why? Because President Biden lets him. We have sanctions on Iran; the President will not enforce them.

Venezuela. Let's take Venezuela, another enemy of our country. Venezuela's oil imports increased 12 percent in 2023. Do you know why? President Biden took the sanctions off of them.

China is probably the biggest winner of them all. Even when President Biden tries to help the American people afford his surging energy costs, China wins. China wins.

I will give you an example. The Biden administration allowed a Chinese-owned company to buy up fuel from our strategic natural petroleum reserve. We have a strategic natural petroleum reserve. We buy up oil, millions of barrels. We store that oil underground in case we need it, in case we can't get oil from anywhere else. It is our energy savings account. Well, President Biden decided to sell some. He decided to sell it. Do you know whom he sold it to? China. China.

It was a move so foolish that the House and the Senate, which usually can't agree on the fact that the sky is blue, both passed bills to prevent China from ever tapping into our petroleum reserve again. You can't make this stuff up, folks.

Energy independence keeps America safe; it keeps America strong; it keeps America prosperous.

Louisianans--I don't know about other States, but I suspect other Americans believe like Louisianans. Louisianans do not want to rely upon the whims of our adversaries to keep our country running.

We cannot let President Biden commit energy suicide--we can't--to appease the radical left, the ``loonwing,'' of his party.

So I ask my colleagues to join me in pushing back against President Biden's anti-energy agenda and his moratorium on liquefied natural gas. Why? Because stupidity should hurt more.

I yield the floor to my good friend from Kansas.

Mr. President, with me today are two of my colleagues from my office: DJ Sandoval, who is to my right; and Mr. Wesley Davis, who is in the back. They do an extraordinary job for the people of Louisiana and the American people.

You can cut the irony--the cynical might say ``the hypocrisy''; I would rather say ``the irony''--you can cut the irony with a knife. After years of presenting themselves as ``sanctuary cities,'' officials--many of them well-intentioned--throughout our country learned in 2023 that the crisis at our southern border is not just a crisis for Southern States like Texas and Arizona and even my State; it is an American crisis.

Today, President Biden's failed border policies have wreaked havoc in every single corner of the United States, including my State, Louisiana. According to one estimate--and it is not the only estimate, but I think this is a very telling estimate--Louisianans pay an additional $4,613 a migrant. That is about $604 million a year in State taxes because of illegal immigration.

People in Louisiana support legal immigration, just like they support the rule of law, but they do not support illegal immigration. It is not just the money. It is a moral issue for them. It is a constitutional issue--as I said, the rule of law--but it is a money issue as well. My people pay 4,613 bucks per illegal migrant. My people have to come out of pocket $604 million a year to deal with President Biden's illegal immigration. That is happening at a time when Louisiana families are also having to come out of pocket an extra $800 a month to deal with inflation--$840 a month just to deal with inflation. So that $604 million that we spend to deal with illegal immigration--not legal but illegal immigration--could provide a lot of relief to the families in my State who have to sell blood plasma in order to go to the grocery store.

Sanctuary cities, to their credit, are finally starting to understand what Louisianans have figured out for a long time.

In New York City, for example--and I love New York City. I think it is one of the most extraordinary cities in the world, maybe the most extraordinary. I love it. It breaks my heart to see what is happening there. In New York City, elected officials just recently had to force thousands of students to stay home--they couldn't go to school--so that thousands of migrants, illegal migrants the Biden administration allowed into the country, could have a place to stay. I mean, what have we come to? We are having to send kids home--so they can't learn--so that folks who have come to our country illegally can have a place to stay.

In Massachusetts, Governor Healey asked residents to ``consider hosting'' migrant families in their homes because many shelters have reached capacity.

Several suburban cities--Chicago recently voted to restrict buses from unloading illegal migrants in their cities. These suburban areas are outside of Chicago.

Because the American people are compassionate people, we don't want people to starve to death or to die in the snow from hyperthermia, but at the same time, you don't get a free lunch. There is no free lunch, and you don't get one now. All of this costs money.

We have, as you know, Mr. President, as many as 12,000 migrants arriving at the southern border each day. Secretary Mayorkas confirmed that the Biden administration admits more than 85 percent of these migrants into our country. Since President Biden has been President, we have had 8.6 million people that we know of come into our country illegally. That is four Nebraskas--four Nebraskas.

No city in America--I don't care how well run or how mismanaged--can handle the massive influx of illegal migrants the Biden administration continues to release into America. That is just a fact. Taxpayers, students, shelter providers, hotel customers, and law enforcement officials in America are suffering because of these bad policies. They have to deal it. The White House doesn't have to deal with it; the people on our frontlines do.

As you can tell, I am very concerned about the burden President Biden's policies have placed on cities throughout the country, but I want to focus today on a subset of that really terrible problem, and that is the national security threat--the national security threat-- that this problem poses to every American, including my people in Louisiana.

President Biden's border policies are not just a human rights disaster, although they certainly are, but his policies have also provided the perfect cover--the perfect cover--for terrorist sympathizers, for child sex offenders, and for cartel associates to enter the country illegally. All you have to do is mix in because nobody is checking anybody.

The numbers that I am about to give you will make you throw up. Border Patrol apprehended 169 members on the FBI's Terrorist Watchlist attempting to cross the southern border illegally in 2023 alone--169. It only takes one terrorist. That is more than 10 times the number of potential terrorists Border Patrol detained in the 4 years before President Biden took office. That is just a fact.

The men and women who earn their spot on the FBI's Terror List do so by associating with groups that hate America. They hate our values. They hate our country. They hate our people. Many of them want to kill us and drink our blood out of a boot. Yet they are coming across the southern border.

These terrorist sympathizers--in some cases, terrorists--they may be evil, but they are not stupid. They know they can blend into the masses at the border and come in unnoticed.

For example, CNN reported a few months ago that someone who had worked as an ``independent contractor'' for ISIS helped smuggle more than a dozen people from Uzbekistan to our border. Overwhelmed officials at our border process each migrant's asylum claim without triggering a single red flag, not a single red flag, and then they release the whole group--every one of them--into the United States to live among innocent American citizens while they wait for their immigration court dates, which takes 4 years. Do you think even after 4 years they are going to show up for their court date?

The FBI finally uncovered the problem. They finally uncovered the ties to ISIS after border officials released the group into the country. Thank the Lord that the FBI caught the mistake and caught what happened. It set off a mad search, of course, trying to track down all these individuals.

The men and women of ISIS, I don't need to tell you, Mr. President, are some of the most dangerous people on Earth. I am not sure they are human. They have bloodstains under their fingernails. Americans, unfortunately, will remember that ISIS gleefully--gleefully--beheaded our citizens.

The terrorist sympathizers on the FBI Watchlist certainly pose a threat to innocent Americans in Louisiana and other States, but at least we know a little bit about them. We know they hope to bring Americans harm, and we have some tools to track them. Thank goodness for that. My stomach turns, though, when I consider the thousands of migrants we know nothing about--we don't even know they have come in-- who hail from countries with millions of people who hate us. Customs and Border Protection calls these people ``special interest aliens.'' That is not my term; that is the term that CPB uses.

In the past 2 years, Border Patrol has encountered 6,386 Afghans, 659 Iranians, and 538 Syrians, all trying to enter the country illegally. Border Patrol also apprehended more than 24,000 Chinese nationals in fiscal year 2023 alone. That is more Chinese immigrants than they caught in the past 10 years combined.

(Mr. MARKEY assumed the Chair.)

I am not saying these are all bad people. I am not saying that. I don't doubt that some of these ``special interest aliens,'' as the authorities call them, may have good intentions, may want to live the American dream. But you would be a fool--you would be a fool--to think that men like President Xi Jinping of China and the Ayatollah of Iran wouldn't exploit--happily, enthusiastically--President Biden's catch- and-release playbook to bring pain and terror to the American people.

I mean, after all, we know what Mexico's cartels have done. They have been exploiting our open border to terrorize Americans for years. Their weapon of choice is fentanyl. The cartels kill tens of thousands of U.S. citizens per year by working with China to flood our communities with fentanyl. That fentanyl comes from China, and it comes from Mexico.

Louisiana lost more than 1,300 people--1,300 loved ones--to fentanyl poisoning in 2022 alone. The narco-terrorists flood our communities with poison and fill their coffers with as much as $1 billion a year. And that fentanyl comes--the precursor chemicals come from China, and the fentanyl comes from Mexico.

And the Mexican politicians know it is going on, and they let it happen. If you took Mexico's cartels and turned them upside down and shook them, hundreds of Mexican politicians would fall out of their pockets. And President Biden does nothing--zero, zilch, nada.

In addition to fentanyl, the cartels make billions running--they run human trafficking rings. They steer the unvetted migrants to America, including many of the caravans we have seen in recent months, right into the United States.

And don't think these cartels are social workers. Don't think these cartels are small businesspeople who want to make sure people get a good service for their money. These cartels--these members--they put the migrants through hell as they march them across the southern border.

Predators sexually assault an estimated four out of five women. It is unsurprising, then, that many of the male migrants the cartels usher to the border are also known sex offenders. In just 2 months--just 2 months--Border Patrol agents in Texas caught 21 known child predators. In 2 months, in one State, Border Patrol caught 21 known child predators attempting to enter this country illegally. Imagine how many we don't know about. And Border Patrol apprehended 284 sex offenders in fiscal year 2023 alone.

The southern border is an open, bleeding wound. Everyone suffers except the cartels. They make billions. And that is why I helped introduce the NARCOS Act earlier this year. Our bill, the NARCOS Act, would designate the Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations and allow U.S. prosecutors to arrest those in charge.

President Biden's border policies have already contributed to the deaths of too many Americans and too many Louisianans. It gives me no joy to say that. There are some things beyond politics. We can do better. We deserve better. The American people ask for better, but they keep getting worse.

In March, for example, a cartel smuggler struck and killed a 71-year- old American grandmother and her 7-year-old granddaughter after he crashed his vehicle while trying to evade law enforcement in Texas. This illegal migrant also killed 2 of the 11 migrants he was smuggling in the back of his truck.

Just last week, an illegal migrant with four prior deportations--that is right, four. Four times he came in, he got caught, he was sent back. He came in, got caught, and was sent back four times, and somehow reentered the United States only to drive drunk and kill a mother and her son in Colorado. This man had a very lengthy criminal record of not just deportations but also alcohol abuse and reckless driving.

An official with Immigration and Customs Enforcement said this man had ``no regard for immigration law''--none. Yet he was able to get back into our country, drive drunk, and kill two innocent people. I am not surprised he has no regard for immigration law. ``Legal immigration and legal immigration laws are for suckers'' is the attitude of the people coming across the border. Why be vetted? Why wait? Why fill out the paperwork when President Biden and Vice President Harris will just let you walk across?

I mean, how is this possible? Why can't this administration see the threat that the southern border--an open, bleeding wound--poses to the American people?

I sure don't blame our overworked Border Patrol agents. I have been down there to the southern border. I have talked to them. I know that our agents are doing the very best they possibly can. But their work goes to waste, folks, when President Biden refuses to address the failed policies that have created this mess.

The southern border is a cesspool of human suffering. That is just the fact. It is a national embarrassment. It is the biggest national security threat our country faces, and that is saying something. People in my State do not understand the President's commitment to keeping the border open to criminals, to sex traffickers, to drug dealers; but they do suffer because of his decisions.

Now, I want to end this way, Mr. President. I think I have made my point. The American people support legal immigration. I do. I know the Presiding Officer does. I don't know this year's numbers, but last year we admitted about a million people into our country legally, our world's neighbors. This is the greatest country in all of human history, and the whole world knows it.

When is the last time you heard of somebody trying to sneak into China? They want to come to America because we are the land of opportunity and we care about our fellow human beings, whether they are born in the United States or not.

Sometimes people say: Oh, the American people are selfish. I get a little angry when they say that. In other countries, they will let their neighbors die in a ditch--not in America. In our country, when you are homeless, we will house you. When you are hungry, we will feed you. When you are too poor to be sick, we will pay for your doctor.

And we do welcome our world's neighbors to come in legally, and I get upset when some of my colleagues--not all of them, but some people-- say: Well, Kennedy, you are racist because vetting people at the border is racist.

No, it is not, Mr. President. It is prudent.

I read this somewhere once--and I will end on this point--and it made great sense to me: The American people are not racist, and they are not xenophobic, and they are proud that people want to come to their country. But they want to know who is coming in and going out.

The American people see the southern border like they see the front door of their home. Most Americans lock their front door at night. They don't do that because they hate everybody on the outside. Most Americans lock their front door at night because they love the people on the inside, and they just want to know who is coming in and out of their home.

And that is all the American people want in terms of immigration. They support legal immigration, but they want people to be properly vetted, and they want to know who is coming in and out of their country.

And, for the life of me, I don't--I don't hate anybody, Mr. President. I don't. I certainly don't hate the President, but I do not understand his policy on the border. I just don't. I hear him talk to us a lot about democracy and the rule of law. And, boy, that is important. There is not a single person in this body who doesn't believe in democracy and have respect for the rule of law. But the legal immigration laws don't just have an asterisk by them.

Now, we could secure this border. We could secure it, I think, in 6 weeks. Here is what we need to do. I am not even sure it would take legislation. There are laws on the books right now; it is a fact. If you try to sneak into our country illegally and you get caught, you are supposed to be immediately deported. We need to enforce the law.

No. 2, if you claim asylum under the 1951 U.N. resolution that we agreed to, you are entitled to have your asylum claim heard. But 70 percent of asylum claims fail. Once your asylum claim fails, you are supposed to be immediately deported. President Biden is deporting none of those people.

No. 3, we need the ``Remain in Mexico'' program. It doesn't mean that people claiming asylum won't get their day in court. They just need to remain at home or remain in Mexico until their day in court comes.

No. 4, the whole purpose of our asylum policy is to keep people from being persecuted politically. That means, if you feel unsafe in your country, you can go to another country. But the law says--the U.N. resolution and treaty to which we agreed says--if you feel like you will be prosecuted illegally in your own country, then you have to seek safety in the first safe country that you go into. That is not, for about 90 percent of our migrants, the United States.

If we had a safe third country policy, which President Biden can do like that--he could do it; he could do it by 6 o'clock--that would solve about 70 to 90 percent of our problem. And for the life of me, Mr. President, I don't understand why.

But I know this: We don't have the slightest idea who these millions and millions of people are, and it only takes one. It only takes one terrorist.

I appreciate your patience.

I yield the floor.

Two minutes, two points, Madam President.

No. 1, imagine if you are a typical Louisiana middle-class family. Mom is making, let's say, $40,000 a year; Dad is making $40,000 a year. They have two children. You have a house note. You have a car note-- probably two car notes because both Mom and Dad have to get to work. You have to pay for health insurance. You have to eat. You try to save a little bit for retirement, and you try to save for your children's college education. But, basically, you are living on $80,000 a year for a family of four.

All of a sudden, prices start rising, as they have. Since President Biden has been President, we have experienced 17-percent inflation. That is how much prices have gone up on average. What does that mean? We cite that number a lot. By the way, I know inflation is coming down and that is a very good thing and I am glad. I hope it stays down. But all that means is that prices are rising less quickly. It doesn't mean prices are dropping.

These high prices caused by the President's inflation are going to be permanent. They are. I wish I didn't have to report that. And as a result of Bidenomics and inflation, in my State, the average family making $80,000 a year is going to have to pay an extra $800 a month because of inflation. That is an extra $10,000 a year. You are on a fixed income of $80,000 and you have to find an extra $10,000.

That is happening right now to millions of Louisianians and millions of Americans. What are you going to do? Well, the first thing you are going to do is ask for a pay raise from your employer. And some of our employers have granted pay raises; and I thank them for that. But it is not how much of a pay raise you have been given that is relevant. What is relevant is how much of a pay raise you have been given vis-a-vis the inflation rate. That is why, when we look at wages, we talk about real wages. That is the amount that wages have gone up after accounting for inflation.

Well, here is what they look like. Since President Biden has been President, this chart represents wages after inflation. We started up here. We are down here. They have been a little bit better lately. So most Americans who have gotten a pay raise after inflation, it doesn't count. It doesn't count. Pay raise doesn't work. It is great to have, but inflation eats it up and then some.

Well, OK. That family still has to find $10,000. What do you do? You are going to borrow the money. And that is what is happening. Credit card debt--buy now, pay later--and other types of loans. Don't just take my word for it. On the last numbers we have in the third quarter of this year, credit card spending was up 9 percent at Chase Bank. It was up 15 percent at Wells Fargo. It is not just putting more money on the card that is relevant; it is also paying down the amount on the card.

People are not only borrowing more on this credit card, but they are not able to pay the amount on their credit card off as quickly as they were. Unpaid loan balances have gone through the roof--16 percent at Chase Bank, up 14 percent at Wells Fargo, up 11 percent at Citigroup. People are using credit cards. They are charging more and more, and they are paying less and less on those credit cards. And they are getting deeper and deeper into the hole.

What else are people doing in my State and every other State? They are raiding their savings. If you look at the numbers, personal deposits are down 3 percent year over year at Chase Bank. What does that mean? That means people are raiding their savings accounts to deal with this inflation. Personal deposits are down 5 percent at Citigroup. Personal deposits are down 10 percent at Wells Fargo and 31 percent--31 percent--in the wealth management division of Wells Fargo.

My point, Madam President, is that these actions that are taken in Washington, DC, have real-life consequences for average, everyday American families on fixed incomes.

As a result of this inflation, which is coming down--but the high prices are permanent--people are having to borrow and people are having to raid their savings. And it is clearly a cancer on the American journey.

Point 2, Madam President. A month or so ago, the Congress passed a resolution. It passed here in the Senate--for us, overwhelmingly--53 to 43. We passed that resolution on the Congressional Review Act. What did we do? Well, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--we call it the CFPB--it is where common sense is illegal. Common sense, I think--I know--is illegal at the CFPB. CFPB comes up with these nuggets every week.

If you ever want to understand why the American people hate the Federal Government, just look at the output of the CFPB. I mean it. Common sense is illegal there. One of their last nuggets, they put out a resolution. The title of it was called ``Small Business Lending Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Resolution B.'' And the Senate said no to this resolution. We said, no, can't do it, 53 to 43. And the House followed it by saying no to the CFPB, 221 to 202.

I am very proud of the Senate. Thank you, colleagues. I am very proud of the House. Unfortunately, President Biden has vetoed it. If I didn't know better, I would think that the President is auditioning to become the President of an Ivy League university, because let me tell you what this resolution will do unless we override the President's veto. Once again, you are a small business woman or small business man. You need a loan. Maybe you need a loan to grow your business; maybe you need a loan to sustain your business.

You go to your community bank. You say, I need to borrow some money. You submit your financials. The bank does its job. It does accurate underwriting, but before the bank can make a decision under this new CFPB rule, where common sense is illegal, the small banker has got to turn to that applicant and say: Look, I have to ask you a bunch of questions. I don't want to, but CFPB says I have to before I can grant your loan, so please bear with me.

Now, the small business woman or small business man is sitting there, things have been going pretty well. That small business person is feeling warm and toasty, thinking, I am going to get my loan, and I am going to be able to keep my business going and keep my people employed. But all it sounds like to me, there is a hitch here because my banker is being very apologetic, and I can tell he is upset about this, but I am going to try to help him and comply.

So the small banker says: OK. Let's get going. I have got to ask you 81 questions.

And the banker from the small bank starts with this small business person. First question: Are you female? Next: Are you male? Are you Black? Are you White? Are you mixed race? Are you another race? Are you Hispanic? Are you a homosexual? Are you a lesbian? Are you gay?

Now, remember, this is probably a small town in a community bank with a small business woman and a small business man applying for a loan. And the CFPB, our Federal Government, is telling the small banker, You have got to ask these questions.

The questions continue. The small banker looks the small business woman in the eye and says: Are you bisexual? Are you transgender? Are you queer? Are you intersex? And on and on and on.

Now, that small business woman--it could be a small business man--is going to have a couple of reactions. First, she is going to be thinking, What in God's name has happened to my country? What in God's name has happened to the Federal Government?

And the second emotion she is probably going to feel is anger. What business is it of the CFPB--what business

does the CFPB have in knowing what I do in my bedroom? It is none of its business. But the other notion that small business woman is probably going to have is fear because she needs this loan and, if she looks that small banker in the eye and says, It is none of your business whether I am gay or straight. It is none of your business what I do in the privacy of my bedroom with a consenting adult. It is none of the government's business, that small business woman is going to be thinking, Man, if I do that, he could deny my loan.

It is not the fault of the small banker; it is the fault of us in Washington, DC. It is the fault of Joe Biden because he has vetoed this resolution. He is saying to the world: It is OK for small banks in America to be required--be required--to turn to a small business woman applying for a loan and say: Are you a lesbian? Are you gay? Are you bisexual? Are you transgender?

And after they answer or don't answer, all of that information is sent to a Federal Agency, the CFPB, which has a data breach about every other Thursday. This is insanity.

And today, in about 10 minutes, I am going to ask this body to override President Biden's veto. If you believe in fairness, if you believe in privacy, if you believe in the freedom of the American people, if you have taken your meds today, if you have any semblance of common sense left, you will see that this proposal by President Biden is like a rock, only dumber.

I can't think of a better example why the American people have come to hate the Federal Government, and I can't think of a better example to explain to people why President Biden's poll numbers are on a journey to the center of the earth. It is stuff like this.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I want to talk a few minutes about seafood.

In many respects, at least in terms of our physical health, we are what we eat, and Americans have been eating a lot more seafood, which is good for you.

A lot of people don't know this. I didn't until I researched. Ninety- four percent of the seafood sold in the United States is imported--94 percent. That is a pretty extraordinary figure. Of the various types of seafood, shrimp represents the highest volume of imports of total edible fishery products.

Given that this seafood is imported, we have to be careful. For that reason, Congress created what we call the Seafood Import Monitoring Program. I am going to call it SIMP, S-I-M-P. So if I say ``SIMP,'' you will know what I am talking about. SIMP's job is to make sure that these foreign imports are safe--safe to eat for the American people.

SIMP has jurisdiction over 13 different species groups and about-- well, over 1,100 unique species. As I said, that includes shrimp and red snapper but almost all forms of seafood that are grown overseas, are produced overseas and imported--or exported, I should say, to the United States.

Now, this sounds simple, but it is not. SIMP's job is to ask questions. SIMP wants to know how the seafood was caught. SIMP wants to know the conditions under which the seafood was farmed, if it is a domestic product. If the seafood has been processed, SIMP wants to know how it was processed, what the final form was supposed to look like and what it actually does look like.

SIMP is supposed to keep us safe. Part of the way that SIMP keeps us safe is to inspect the product--not just look at the reporting requirements that the foreign producers give to SIMP but actually look at the product, whether it is the raw seafood or whether it is processed. SIMP inspects it.

In fiscal year 2020, SIMP--once again, the Seafood Import Monitoring Program, SIMP--and its auditing team

completed 1,131 investigations. That is the good news. The bad news is, that was only 1 percent--1 percent--of all of the imports.

Of the audits or investigations--the inspections, if you will--that SIMP did, about 40 percent of those were on shrimp. Of the 40 percent that SIMP did on shrimp, 35 percent were found to be not in compliance with the rules. Thirty-five percent was unsafe.

This is serious business. Unlike most of our domestic producers, a lot of the producers in foreign countries try to produce their shrimp or their seafood on the cheap. They raise the product in filthy water. They don't have rigorous standards for processing the product if they take the raw product and turn it into a final product. Oftentimes, many of these foreign producers shoot the shrimp and other forms of seafood, like red snapper, with antibiotics, which, of course, if you eat enough of them, makes you resistant to those antibiotics if you get sick in another way that the antibiotics could cure.

I mean, let me just be blunt. Some of this product is unsafe. It will make you grow an extra ear. And that is why we have SIMP, is to say: Wait a minute. You can't sell this in the United States.

Once again, of the 1,100-and-change inspections that SIMP did in fiscal year 2020, 40 percent were shrimp, and SIMP found that 35 percent of that 40 percent failed the test.

SIMP is able to inspect, as I said, 1 percent of this exported--for us, imported--seafood. One percent. It needs to be doing 10 percent. It needs to be doing 10 percent, and my bill would help them do 10 percent. My bill would provide additional funding for additional seafood inspections on imported seafood, and we would be asking SIMP to go from 1 percent inspections of all imported seafood to 10 percent.

Now, there is no free lunch, Mr. President, and you don't get one now. My bill costs money. It will cost $36 million. In the grand scheme of our spending, that is not much, but $36 million is a lot of money. And I didn't want to come up here and just offer a bill that was a money suck; I wanted to come up here and say: Look, we have a problem. It will cost $36 million to solve it, and here is where the money is going to come from.

The money, the $36 million, will come from the money that has been appropriated--the extra billions of dollars that have been appropriated--to the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS, believe me, will never miss the $36 million. The IRS wastes that much money between bites of oatmeal at breakfast.

If we do this bill, people can enjoy their seafood, and they can appreciate the fact that it is safe.

So for that reason, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3533, which is at the desk--and S. 3533, as I just indicated, is the Seafood Import Monitoring Program Audits bill--and I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, look, I understand Senator Wyden's point of view. I don't think he meant this, but I don't want to leave anyone with the impression that he didn't know about this bill and that all of my colleagues didn't know about this bill.

We have something called a hotline. And when we have a bill and we want to try to move it on the floor, we, through this hotline, notify well in advance every Senator: Hey, Kennedy is coming to the floor at this time, on this day, with his bill. If you object to it, you can come down and object.

That hotline was sent to Senator Wyden. It was sent to all the other 98 of my colleagues. It was sent to every single Senator, and we do hotlines every day.

So if he was surprised, I am sorry. But that is between him and his staff.

Point two, I appreciate Senator Wyden's point of view. He is a smart gentleman. He is smart enough to know this has nothing to do with wealthy tax cheats. This has to do with safe seafood for the American people.

The bill would have cost $36 million. It would come from the IRS. No Republican Senator voted for it. My Democratic colleagues gave the IRS $80 billion extra--$80 billion extra--to go out and audit the American people. This will take $36 million of it to make sure that they are still alive when the IRS audits them because they may not be eating dangerous shrimp full of antibiotics.

Does the IRS need all $80 billion? Of course not. How do I know that? Don't take Kennedy's word for it. Take the word of the gentleman who asked us to pass the bill: President Biden. He has already told us the IRS doesn't need the full $80 billion. He offered up $20 billion to us for this year's budget to spend on other things.

So the idea that the world is going to spin off its axis--and wealthy tax cheats and all of this other foolishness--is just not accurate. I say that with all respect to my colleague, Senator Wyden.

I will be back. For $36 million, we can protect the American people. I can promise you that the seafood board will spend that money better than the Internal Revenue Service. That is faint praise, but I can promise you that will happen.

My final point, I appreciate the opportunity to present this bill. Be careful what you eat, particularly if it is imported seafood. I am not kidding you. If you are eating seafood, given the statistics, you are probably eating foreign seafood, and this stuff can be dangerous. I mean it. Some of this product has enough antibiotics in it that you will grow an extra ear. And you don't want that.

The best way to be safe is to eat domestic seafood--good old American seafood. But if you don't, if you are going to eat foreign seafood, be very, very careful.

I will be back with a very commonsense approach to try to solve that problem, and I am sorry we couldn't do it today.

Thank you, Mr. President, for your time, and I thank Senator Wyden. And I wish both of you a Merry, Merry Christmas.

Mr. President, so far--so far--the United States is standing behind Israel, as it should, in Israel's fight against Hamas-- so far.

Don't go wobbly on us, President Biden. Don't go wobbly on Israel.

But some people in Washington seem confused as to why America backs Israel. I am seeing a lot of hand-wringing from folks who like to pretend that there is some kind of--they use this word a lot: ``nuance''--that there is some kind of nuance we need to apply to the Hamas terrorist attacks of October 7 before we can condemn Hamas and hold its supporters accountable. President Obama has even suggested that somehow we are all complicit in the bloodshed.

Some people promoting this idea of nuance, frankly, believe that Israel got what it deserves. Now, they don't say that, but that is what they believe. They believe that Israel got what it deserved. These folks who believe that also apparently believe in diversity, equity, inclusion, and the right to kill Jews.

Thankfully, that is not most Americans. That is a lot of people here in Washington, DC.

In Louisiana, however, my State, we understand that the debased people who slaughtered hundreds of young people at a peace concert are the bad guys. In Louisiana, we understand that the odious men who raped women, raped and sodomized women next to the bodies of their dead friends, don't deserve to be on this planet. We in Louisiana understand that the degenerates--the degenerates--who forced kidnapped Holocaust survivors to pose for photos--to pose for photos, for God's sake--next to their terrorist captors are just wrong.

Nothing--nothing--that the Israeli Government has ever done or could do warranted throwing grenades at children hiding in a bomb shelter. Why are some people reluctant to admit that?

You don't need to read a treatise on the Middle East to know that only monsters--monsters with black hearts--would put a baby in an oven and flip on the switch, as one first responder reported. That is not nuance; that is evil.

The evil we saw unfold when Hamas butchered Israeli civilians is indefensible. It is indefensible. Those terrorists brutalized thousands of people, including dozens of our American friends and neighbors. Hearing the stories from the survivors and from the first responders-- it is nauseating. It is not nuance; it is evil.

Yet the Hamas terrorists took joy, they yelped for joy, as they massacred civilians. One terrorist called his mom--called his mother-- to brag that he had ``killed 10 Jews with my own hands.'' Who would brag about something like that? Another Hamas official celebrated the violence and vowed to continue to wage attacks like this ``again and again and again'' until Israel no longer exists.

No family in Israel will be able to sleep soundly at night until these terrorists are wiped off the face of the Earth.

Israel has both the right and it has the responsibility to defend itself. I am proud that the United States of America is supporting Israel.

Don't go wobbly on us, President Biden. Stand your ground. Don't go wobbly.

I am proud that the United States is supporting Israel. The world will be a safer place for Israelis and Americans alike when Hamas ceases to exist.

Hamas leaders told anyone who would listen--anyone who would listen-- they told us exactly what they intended to do and wanted to do and will continue to do. They told anyone who would listen that their goal is to kill as many Jewish people as possible, and that is still their goal.

This wasn't a protest against Israel's Government; it was a massacre of Jewish people--the largest since the Holocaust.

It is not surprising, then, that some who oppose intervention in Gaza have turned to attacking Jewish Americans.

In New York City, those people cornered Jewish students in a library, forcing a librarian to offer to hide the students in an attic. At Cornell University, they threatened to shoot up the kosher dining hall. At my State's Tulane University, activists broke a student's nose because he opposed their anti-Israel demonstration.

These protests didn't occur in New York City or Cornell or Tulane by accident; they targeted these areas because they are home to many Americans who happen to be Jewish. That is just a fact. New York is home to the largest Jewish population outside of Israel. Tulane, in my State, which was the first university in the South to welcome Jewish students, has a student body today that is roughly 40 percent Jewish. It was no accident.

When confused activists twist themselves in knots trying to justify the torture and the rape and the killing of Jews in the Middle East, they are feeding the fires of anti-Semitism here at home as well. Unfortunately, we have seen that over the past few weeks.

Let's not forget--it is Hamas who is using civilians as human shields. Hamas is the group also hoarding fuel and food as Palestinian civilians starve. Hamas is the group that dug up water pipes to turn them into rocket launchers.

The truth is that the Palestine people, the people of Gaza, and the Israeli people all suffer because of Hamas, and any suggestion that Israel is culpable for this suffering plays into the hands of the terrorists.

In Louisiana, we can see through the pseudo-intellectual hand- wringing of Israel's critics. The truth is that Hamas brutalized Israeli citizens and then ran home to hide behind their women and children, using those women and children as human shields. They are the lowest kind of pond scum, the lowest kind of sadists imaginable.

Over the past week, Hamas has released some hostages as part of a temporary cease-fire. I am happy for that, and the American people are happy for that. I and they hope that every hostage will be reunited with their family soon. We cannot forget, however--we should not forget, however--that Hamas vowed to continue attacking and kidnapping Israeli citizens again and again and again, and the only way to stop this cycle is to eliminate Hamas.

I was out of the country, in another country, when Hamas attacked Israel, and I did not know what position President Biden would take. I didn't. He said: I am standing with Israel. I was so relieved.

I know President Biden is under a lot of pressure from the loon wing of his party to abandon Israel, to demand a permanent cease-fire, to let Hamas go unpunished. But Hamas doesn't want a permanent cease-fire. Hamas had a permanent cease-fire on October 6, the day before they attacked Israeli civilians, and Hamas forfeited that cease-fire unilaterally.

Here is what Hamas wants: Hamas wants to terrorize Israel until all of the Jewish people are dead. Hamas wants to terrorize Israel until all of the Jewish people are dead. Hamas wants to kill Jews. Hamas wants to kill Jews and drink their blood out of a boot.

That is not nuance, President Obama; that is evil.

President Biden needs to show the world--and, frankly, some members of his own party--that the United States of America and its good people will continue to stand with Israel until Hamas is in ruins, until Hamas is dead and we drink their blood out of a boot, until Hamas's genocidal agenda is abandoned.

The world will be safer on that day, and it will certainly be safer because Hamas is not in it. By supporting Israel's efforts, Americans are helping to ensure that an attack like October 7 never happens again, and I think most fairminded Americans understand that.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I want to talk for a few minutes today about elementary and secondary education, more specifically about school choice. School choice is inextricably related, in my opinion, to social justice. Put another way, I just don't understand how one can be a fairminded person and believe in social justice but not support school choice.

In Congress, of course, we seem to face a new crisis every week, and while we need to respond to them, I think it is important that we not lose sight of what I call the foundational issues that ensure that our country is free and democratic and aspirational and prosperous for our children and our grandchildren. One of those issues, one of those foundational issues, is education.

Right now, the American people are focused on the border, which is an open, bleeding wound; they are focused on inflation; they are focused on crime; they are focused on turmoil abroad. I don't blame them, as we need to be focused on those things, but while we focus on those things, it is a fact that the quality of our students' elementary and secondary education has been steadily slipping, steadily slipping. And it is clarion clear. Unless you have been living in your parent's basement, it is clarion clear that the status quo of education in America isn't setting our kids or our country up for success. I take no joy in saying that, but sometimes you can't look reality in the eye and deny it; you have to admit it.

Here are a few examples of how America's and Louisiana's pre-K to 12 students are falling behind. The numbers are the numbers: Math and reading scores among American 13-year-olds are at their lowest levels in decades. That is not my opinion. That is according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress. As the Presiding Officer knows, that is a study done annually, known as ``The Nation's Report Card.'' On ``The Nation's Report Card,'' just 35 percent of American fourth graders--35 percent--are proficient in math. Only 32 percent of American fourth graders are proficient in reading.

American students are slipping globally as well. In 2008, the IMD World Competitiveness Center ranked American students first in the world. By 2023, the United States had slipped to 10th overall. In science, American students ranked 11th. In math, American students ranked 30th.

In Louisiana, I regret to say that roughly half of my students in Louisiana in grades K through 3 are not reading at the grade level-- half. Only one-third of my kids in grades 3 through 12 are at grade level in the four subjects that the Louisiana Educational Assessment Program--we call it LEAP--tests. In fact, we have, in Louisiana, 24 school systems--24--in which fewer than a quarter of our students-- fewer than a quarter--have proficient LEAP exam scores.

Now, I have said this before on the Senate floor, and I am going to say it again: The American people can do extraordinary things. We can unravel the human genome; we can take a diseased human heart and replace it with a new one and make it beat; we can send a person to the Moon. But we can't seem to figure out how to teach our children how to read and how to write and how to do math when we have 18 years to do it. And there is no excuse because all children can learn.

I know it is complicated, and there are a multitude of reasons why our children may be struggling. For over 15 years, I have been a volunteer substitute teacher in our public schools. I went to a public school. In Louisiana, we need substitutes so badly that they will even take politicians. I try to do it three times a year--sometimes more, sometimes less. Every time, I learn, but I am always reminded every time I substitute teach of the fact that it is much, much harder today to be a teacher than when I was in a public school and that it is also much, much harder today to be a kid. So I have some understanding of the challenge.

The evidence is also clear now that closing schools during the pandemic made matters a lot worse. We in America made a mistake. Some States did better than others, but most of them got it wrong. But, you know, we can't keep blaming things on the pandemic. It has been a few years since our schools reopened, and our scores are nowhere near where they need to be. The truth is that pre-K to 12 education in America and in Louisiana was in trouble well before the pandemic, and we all know that. Yet leaders in many States remain hesitant, to say the least, to change anything--anything--about our public school system.

We have all heard the famous definition of ``insanity.'' The definition of ``insanity'' is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting to get a different result. It is a cliche. Cliches become cliches because they are true. We need to follow the law of holes: When you are in one, stop digging. When you are in one, stop digging. We need to stop making excuses about pre-K through 12 education; and we need to stop doing things that don't work and then doing them again. You can't expect to fix a broken status quo--to magically fix it--and to magically fix our broken schools and equip struggling students if you keep doing the same thing.

The fact--the unhappy fact, the miserable fact--is that too many of our schools in America and in Louisiana are failure factories--they are failure factories--where violence is common and learning is rare.

But there are a few States that are bucking the status quo, and they are doing it in part by adopting school choice programs. So far, they have seen a lot of success.

School choice programs--``school choice,'' I realize it is a broad term--school choice programs can take many different shapes, but they all boil down to one thing, one foundational principle: Parents should be allowed to take their kids out of failing schools. Parents should be allowed to take their children out of failing schools and put them in schools that can help those children thrive and certainly do better. It is not complicated.

You know, American parents today, they can go to the grocery store, and they can choose from 40 different--maybe more but certainly 40 different breakfast cereals to feed their child in the morning, but in many States, those parents have absolutely no control over which school their child can attend.

Children are stuck in schools, too many of them assigned by their parents' ZIP Code, and there is little that most parents--too many parents--can do to change that even though it is

patently absurd to force children to attend failing schools when parents could enroll those kids and invest the money that pays for their education in better schools. That is where school choice comes in.

In practice, schools facilitate, they implement school choice by tweaking how they fund school systems.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with school funding schemes, most public schools have three main sources of funding: Federal dollars, State dollars, and local dollars. The exact breakdown of that money varies by State and by school system. In Louisiana, for example, the average school district gets about 11 percent of its money from Federal funding, 44 percent of its money from the State, and another 45 percent from local government, so 11, 44, and 45.

Local dollars typically stay with the school system in a particular town or parish. We call our counties parishes. But officials, public officials in Louisiana, have the right and the ability to allocate those State and Federal dollars the way they want to.

When States adopt school choice policies--here is how it works-- parents typically get to decide which school will receive their child's share of State and Federal funding. The local dollars stay local, but parents can redirect the Federal and the State money.

There are two ways in which States that implement school choice reallocate that money, the Federal and the State dollars. The first is education savings account, and the second is--you have heard of it-- vouchers.

Education savings accounts are government-funded savings accounts that take all or a portion of the Federal and State dollars allocated to each student and give it to parents to use for their kid's education. Parents can use the money a multitude of ways. They can use the money to pay for tutors, to purchase textbooks for homeschooling. Parents can use the State and Federal money to subsidize private school tuition. If a student and a parent have money left over when the student graduates from high school, that student can even use the funding to help pay for college. It is called an education savings account.

Other States use a voucher system. Under a voucher system, parents typically do not receive money directly. Instead, they get to choose. They tell the school system which school their child is going to go to and tell the school system to send the Federal and State money to that school. So the money follows the children. The parents can take that voucher to a traditional public school. The parents can take that voucher to a private school to pay private school tuition. The parents can take that voucher to enroll the kids in a charter school they would like.

Charter schools, as you know, are tuition-free, publicly funded schools that operate independent of the State. Rather than taking marching orders from the government, charter schools are able to design their own curriculum and their own standards to help meet the needs of each student.

So whether it is through vouchers or education savings accounts, States that have embraced school choice have steadily climbed the ranks as the best States in this country for elementary and secondary education. That is just a fact. Look it up.

Take Florida for example. Florida has had school choice for a long time--decades. It is not mandatory, but it is an option. A lot of parents love that option, and they use it. Graduation rates in Florida have steadily increased year after year after year. Florida's fourth graders rank third in the country in reading and they rank fourth in the country in math according to ``The Nation's Report Card.'' Other pro-school-choice States, including Iowa, North Dakota, and Utah, to mention a few, have all landed in the top 10 States on ``The Nation's Report Card.''

School choice works.

Even States that have traditionally struggled with respect to education are seeing improvements. Take Louisiana's neighbor, Mississippi. Mississippi overhauled its pre-K to 12 system in 2013 to help parents get their kids out of failing schools. The State implemented a voucher program for kids with dyslexia and low-income students to ensure that parents could find a successful school that would meet their children's needs.

Mississippi also implemented a law requiring schools to hold back students who cannot read at grade level in the third grade and give them additional instruction. In other words, if you are in the third grade and after several chances, you can't read at grade level, you are not socially promoted to grade 4. You are kept in the third grade until you can read, because kids drop out of high school in the third and fourth grade. If they can't read, they have no chance.

Since Mississippi did all of this in 2013, Mississippi has jumped from 50th in education to 35th. In 2023, student achievement levels reached an alltime high in Mississippi. Graduation rates climbed from 75 percent in 2011 to 87 percent by 2020--well above the national average. Mississippi managed all of this growth--all of this growth-- while spending less money per student than all but four States. It is not just money; it is how you spend it.

This year, we are doing better in Louisiana. This year, Louisiana followed the lead of Mississippi, and we passed a law called HB12--I have talked about it on the floor--to ensure that all third grade students can read at grade level before they can move on to the fourth grade. Fortunately--and I thank him for doing it--Governor John Bel Edwards did not veto the bill. I was afraid he would. He signed it into law, and I want to thank him for that.

But when it comes to school choice, Governor Edwards has opposed it at every turn--every turn. He blocked two bills last year that would have established voucher programs for my kids in Louisiana. If those two bills had passed, parents of students with special needs or students who could not read at grade level by the third grade could have taken their State money, the State-funded education dollars--not the local, the State dollars--to a different school that could better address those children's needs. But the Governor opposed the bills, and they didn't make it.

Those bills would have provided a lifeline to parents--a lifeline to parents--who were desperate and still are desperate to help their children succeed in school, but Governor Edwards opposed it. He opposed allowing these parents to find better alternatives for their children.

The good news is that Louisiana is about to have a new Governor, and the good news is that Louisiana is about to have a brandnew legislature. I can't speak for our new Governor, but I know our legislators. I have supported many of them. We made some wholesale changes. I hope my friends in the Louisiana Legislature are anxious and eager and enthusiastic about giving parents, finally, the power to remove their children from failing schools.

Parents overwhelmingly support school choice. In Louisiana, 75 percent of parents with school-age kids support school choice. Nationwide, that number has gone from 64 percent in 2019 to 71 percent today.

So you are asking yourself, who can oppose school choice? Many--not all but many--teachers unions and many--not all--of the administrators in failing schools; the adults, not the kids--the adults. Our schools are supposed to be about our kids, not the adults. Many--not all but many--of our teachers unions worry that giving parents the choice to pick a different school will result in more students attending nonunion schools, such as charter schools. Many--not all, many--administrators in failing schools hate the idea that they will need to compete with other local schools to attract kids and earn the State and Federal dollars that follow those kids. It is called competition.

As I am sure you have noticed, both of these fears I just referenced for some--not all--of our teachers unions and our administrators focus on what is best for them and the school system and the adults, not on what is best for the parents and the kids.

Competition makes everybody better. Competition makes everybody better, and that is true of our schools too. The United States has a highly competitive higher education system, and in return, our universities are the best in the world. They are. I have been to a school in another country. It was a good school. But as a group, American universities are the best in all of human history. Now, they have some problems, as we all know about, but they are still the best in the world.

There is a reason that most wealthy and well-connected people around the world want to send their children to an American campus to get their degrees.

The excellence of American universities is driven by the fact that students can choose to go elsewhere if a university stops delivering a quality education. The students and their parents can vote with their feet.

It is called choice. It is about as American as you can get. And that same competition, that same choice, will help restore K through 12 schools to excellence as well. Americans don't need to watch the status quo fail their children. They don't. States throughout this country are empowering parents to take control of their kids' education, and the whole country stands to benefit from their leadership.

When it comes to education, now, I am an all-of-the-above guy. I don't care if it is public schools, charter schools, private schools, vouchers, savings accounts, or pixie dust. If it will help our kids learn better, I am for it. I don't care who gets mad. And that is why I am very optimistic about the leadership changes in Louisiana and the good news it could mean for our elementary and secondary education and for our parents and our children.

I am not saying that school choice alone is the silver bullet. We have other problems in Louisiana. We need to expand access to education programs for at-risk children from early age to age 4. We need to do a better job there.

We have a shortage of qualified teachers. We need to find out which of our teachers can teach and pay them like the professionals they are and find out which of our teachers can't teach and either teach them how or tell them to find a new line of work.

We have got too much truancy among our kids. Forty percent of our K through 8 schools grade A or B; but, somehow, magically, 70 percent of our high schools are graded A or B. We know that is not right. We have watered down our standards. Also, college costs for our kids and our parents have doubled in the last decade.

So we have other problems, but school choice will help. And I believe, as much as I am standing here, that America's future and Louisiana's future can be better than our present and it can be better than our past, but not if we don't improve our schools. And no one is coming to save our schools in Louisiana but ourselves. And with new leadership and school choice on the horizon, the future of elementary and secondary education in Louisiana can be and is, to me, promising.

So I end as I began. No fairminded person, in my opinion, can say he or she supports social justice if they don't support school choice.

I neglected to mention, Mr. President, that with me today are two of my colleagues from my office: Ms. Maddie Dibble and Mr. Christian Amy. I wanted to recognize them.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I don't intend to try to match the eloquence of Senator Warnock, and I am certainly not going to repeat what he just said.

Senator Warnock and I have introduced--as he said--the Affordable Insulin Now Act of 2023. It would cap the price of insulin for people with private insurance and people who don't have any insurance at all at $35 for a 30-day supply.

I have noticed that nobody in Washington ever stands up and says: I have got a lousy idea, and I need money for it.

It is always: I have got an extraordinary idea and an important idea and an effective idea, and we need to do this. We need to spend money.

And in almost all the cases, the people making that assertion are in good faith. They really believe that. And in many cases, it is true. They have a great idea. And a lot of what we do, as you know, is we make decisions, but we really--that means we balance interests. We have got a finite amount of money. We can't keep borrowing at the rate we have been borrowing. We have got a finite amount of money, and we have got to make hard decisions on what to spend that money on.

And the traditional dichotomy is, well, guns versus butter, domestic needs versus defense needs. But it is more complicated than that. Sometimes it is butter versus butter. And those are hard decisions to make, and I realize that.

The second point, I guess, I would make is that we deal with so many problems in the U.S. Congress that, frankly, we don't know how to solve. We are doing the best that we can, but we are really nibbling at around the edges. I don't know how to make a parent love their child.

We all know that if a parent doesn't show the parent's love for a child, the child is not going to stop loving the parent; the child is going to stop loving himself. And we know what that leads to.

And I don't know how. I don't know anybody who really knows how to make a parent love a child and support their children. That is one of those problems we deal with all the time. It is hard to solve. We don't really completely understand how to successfully help an addict stop being an addict. I wish we did. And there are things we can do to help the addict, but we don't really have the answer.

Sometimes we pretend we do, but we don't. We don't have the answer. I don't have the answer to stop people from hurting other people, from taking their stuff and doing it repeatedly.

And I could continue. All the easy problems are solved. And I make these two points that we have a lot of competing interests for the way we spend money and the point that there are some problems we really don't know how to solve. To assert--and you can believe me or not believe me, but if you will read the report that Senator Warnock talked about, you will see that he and I, I believe, are correct. This is a problem we can solve.

If I had to pick one health problem that affects the quality of life and costs our country and our system the most money, it would be diabetes. I don't know if you have ever known somebody with diabetes. It is a horrible disease, and it can't be cured. But we know how to treat it.

It is very pervasive. In my State, 44 percent of my people are affected by diabetes directly. Fourteen percent are diabetic. Another 30 percent are prediabetic. And Louisiana is not the only State with those kind of numbers.

Diabetics account for $1 of every $4 spent, $1 out of every $4 spent on healthcare in the United States of America. Think about that. The average cost of hospitalization for a diabetic--which if they can't pay for it, ultimately we all pay. The average cost of hospitalization for diabetic patients is from $8,400 to $23,000 a year.

And medical costs, if you look beyond the quality-of-life issue and the moral issue of just helping people who are sick, if you look at it in terms of dollars and cents, diabetes costs America $327 billion a year. That is in medical costs and lost work and wages and lost productivity.

So we know the problem, and we know the costs. And we have a solution: Insulin. It works. It works. So why don't we make insulin available to everybody who needs it, whether they

can afford it or not? And that is what our bill does. It is not going to be free. Insulin doesn't cost that much to make, and I don't begrudge the companies who sell insulin. I don't begrudge them making a profit.

But it is bone-deep, down-to-the-marrow stupid for us to allow someone whose diabetes can be managed by taking insulin not to take that insulin because they can't afford it. That is immoral, and that makes no sense in terms of dollars-and-cents cost to the rest of the American people. And Senator Warnock and I's bill would address that. It would say: If you have private insurance, great. But if you don't have any insurance at all, if you are uninsured--and a lot of Americans become uninsured every year; maybe they don't stay uninsured, but they become uninsured--and you are diabetic, we are going to cap your out- of-pocket cost at $35 for a 30-day supply. So you have no excuse not to take your insulin to address your diabetes.

It is the right thing to do. It is the smart thing to do. And Senator Warnock and I's bill is paid for. We are not suggesting we go out and just borrow more money. This bill, our bill, is paid for. It is going to be paid for by finding other moneys in the budget.

Now, Senator Warnock has worked extremely hard. He is the lead author on this bill, and I thank him for his big mind and his good heart and soul on this issue.

Others have worked hard too; Senator Collins and Senator Shaheen have a bill, and we are working to try to marry our two bills, the four of us. But, ultimately, what it is going to come down to, in my opinion, is that, Senators being Senators, Senator Schumer is the floor leader. He is going to have to force a shotgun marriage here. He is going to have to take the good work of Senator Shaheen and Senator Collins, Senator Warnock and my work--whether you want to call it good or not-- and say: I am going to take their efforts and put them in one bill. And Senator Schumer's bill will be paid for; otherwise, I am not going to vote for it, but it will be paid for.

And his bill--I will wrap it up real fast--and his bill will be paid for, and it will lower the cost of insulin for insured and uninsured.

I yield to the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. President, I think we are all aware that parts of our world are on fire. The world is on fire in Ukraine and in Eastern Europe, and the world is on fire in the Middle East. I wouldn't describe the world as being on fire in the Indo-Pacific, but there are certainly embers, and they are smoldering.

I think it is clear to most Americans that President Xi in China, that President Putin in Russia, and that the Ayatollah in Iran are working together, and their objective is to have Russia dominate Central and Eastern Europe and to have the Ayatollah in Iran dominate the Middle East. The Ayatollah, of course, is funding and supports Hamas.

There is no cause in the world--none--that can justify what Hamas did to the innocent people of Israel. The people of Hamas are so evil they will kill you and drink your blood out of a boot. And President Xi and President Putin and the Ayatollah in Iran are just fine with that.

The third objective of China, Russia, and Iran is to allow China to dominate the Indo-Pacific and be free to make moves in Sub-Saharan Africa and in South America.

Parts of the world are on fire. America is about to find out what it is made of because the world I just described is not a world safe for America.

But as we meet these challenges, Mr. President--and by God, we will meet them. We will meet them. While we are doing that, I don't want us to forget about our homeland. We have a lot of problems domestically, and I don't want us to lose sight of them. I think about them every day. I know you do, too, Mr. President.

We still have millions of Americans who are too poor to be sick despite the fact that we have the best quality of healthcare in America in all of human history. Notice I didn't say that we have the best way of delivering that healthcare. But we have the best quality of healthcare in all of human history, but we have people in this country--many of them are middle class--who are too poor to be sick. Since the Affordable Care Act passed, we were told that it was going to make our lives better, that it was going to make health insurance more accessible and cheaper. Since the Affordable Care Act was passed, health insurance premiums have tripled.

We also know domestically that our border is an open, bleeding wound. It is an open, bleeding wound, and it is within the power of this Congress to fix that.

But none of those domestic problems that I just described--and I could continue with others, as I know you could, too, Mr. President--is hurting the American people as much as President Biden's inflation. Not a single one. President Biden's inflation is gutting the American people like a fish. It is a cancer--a cancer--on the American dream.

In my State alone, in Louisiana--we are not a wealthy State. My people are pretty middle class. They get up every day. They go to work. They obey the law. They try to do the right things by their kids, try to save a little for retirement. The median household income for a family of four in my State is $55,000 a year. A lot of States are above us; some are below us.

President Biden's inflation, which is manmade--and that man's name is Joe Biden--is costing my people, the average Louisiana family, $806-- not a year, a month, $806 a month. That is $9,700 a year. Now, imagine if you were making $55,000 a year, and you have to come out of pocket with an extra $9,700 a year. You blow through your savings. You max out your credit card. You borrow from your children's college education plan. You borrow from relatives. And then what do you do?

I know what some of my colleagues are thinking: But, Kennedy, we are doing better on inflation.

We are, and I am so thankful. A year ago, inflation in this country was 8.2 percent. Today, it is 3.7 percent. I am so happy, and I hope it continues to go down, but it is important for us to remember what that means.

A reduction of inflation from 8.2 percent to 3.7 percent--which is still, of course, too high--just means that inflation is rising less rapidly. We still have inflation. Prices are still high, and they continue to go up; they just are not going up as quickly as they were. That is a good thing, but it doesn't solve the problem. That is what we call disinflation. When inflation is rising and we stop it from rising so quickly, that is called disinflation. But that is not what most Americans care about, although that is important to them. What they care about is prices going down, and that is deinflation. We do not have deinflation.

The point I am trying to make is, we are stuck with these high prices. If they get inflation down to zero, those prices are not going down; they are going to remain the same. They are just not going to rise as quickly. We are stuck. The American people are stuck with these high prices because of the Biden administration.

I could cite you all the sterile statistics you would like, but I want to try to describe in specific terms what it is like for my people to go to the grocery store, to have to--this is an exaggeration but not by much--to have to think about, well, do I have to sell blood plasma today in order to go to the grocery store? Do I have to draw down on the second mortgage on my home in order to go to the grocery store?

Since President Biden has been in office, consumer goods in the United States of America are up 17 percent,

electricity is up 25 percent, eggs are up 29 percent. They are not going down, folks. Even if inflation goes to zero, those prices aren't going down. Potato chips, up 30 percent; bread, up 28 percent; coffee, 30 percent; rice, 26 percent. Flour is up 28 percent; milk, 18 percent; half a gallon of ice cream, 21 percent; chicken, 20 percent.

When you look at larger categories, this is what is happening to the American people. Since President Biden took office--since President Biden took office--all goods and many services in the wealthiest country in all of human history are up 17 percent. Food is up 20 percent. Housing is up 17 percent. Clothing is up 12 percent. Used cars and trucks are up 25 percent. New cars and trucks are up 20 percent. Mortgage rates are up 174 percent--174 percent.

Some may be saying: Well, but wages are going up too.

Thank goodness. In some cases, wages have gone up. But the average wage of the average American has gone down after inflation. The appropriate way to look at wage increases is not to look at the raw aggregate increase; it is looking at the increase after inflation. If you take all of the average wage increases in the United States of America and you looked at the average inflation in the United States of America, workers have actually lost ground. Workers today, in November of 2023, are actually making less per hour after inflation than they were in February of 2021. So don't let anybody tell you that wages have made up for this. They haven't kept up with inflation.

Don't let anybody tell you we are winning the war on high prices. We are getting inflation down, no thanks--no thanks--to the Biden administration and, quite frankly, the U.S. Congress. That is thanks to the Federal Reserve. They have tightened interest rates, which has hurt a lot of people, but they have gotten inflation down. They had to do it with one arm tied behind their backs because the other way you attack inflation and the only way we have ever successfully gotten it down is to have Congress do its part and reduce the rate of growth and spending and debt accumulation. But we haven't done that. We haven't done that. In fact, since 2019, the population of the United States of America is up 1.9 percent. Our country has grown 2 percent since 2019. Do you know how much our budget has grown? Fifty-five percent.

This inflation is manmade, and the man's name is Joe Biden, and we need to address it.

So as we fight a hostile world which day by day is becoming less safe for the American people, I don't want us to lose sight of another problem--an equally important problem--that is stealing the American dream, and it is called President Biden's inflation.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there be up to 6 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to the scheduled rollcall vote.

Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 1354, and I ask that it be reported by number.

The clerk will report by number.

Madam President, before I explain my amendment, I would like to yield 30 seconds to my good friend Senator Tester.

Madam President, there are 16 million veterans in our country. Sometimes some of them need help with managing their financial affairs. When they do, they go to the Veterans Health Administration, and the Veterans Health Administration appoints a fiduciary to help that veteran manage his or her financial affairs.

But, under current VA policy, if a veteran who defended this country has to go to the VA and ask for help with managing his or her financial affairs, the VA automatically reports that veteran to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System--we call it NICS--and that veteran loses his firearm. He loses his firearm automatically--no due process, no questions asked. This decision is not being made by a judge; it is being made by a bureaucrat.

All our amendment would do would be to say that the VA, just because you have asked for help with your money, cannot automatically take away your firearm or report you to NICS unless a judge has ruled that that veteran is a danger to himself or to others.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam President, with all the respect I can muster, what my colleague said is inaccurate.

Now, I understand this is America; people can believe what they want. There are people who wish we didn't have the Second Amendment. I get that, but we do. And I agree with Senator Murphy. We both agree on this. Chris believes that love is the answer, and I do, too, but I own a handgun just in case. That is my right, and every veteran has that right. We shouldn't take away a person's gun without a judge--not a bureaucrat at the VA--ruling that person to be mentally incompetent.

Vote on Amendment No. 1354

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I ask for permission to speak for up to 20 minutes before the vote.

Mr. President, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--we call it the CFPB--has struck again. It has made another bad decision--this by an Agency that has become famous for bad decisions. Here is what is going on.

You will remember the Dodd-Frank Act, of course, which this Congress passed after the financial meltdown in 2007, 2008, and 2009. There was a section in the Dodd-Frank Act called section 1071--fairly innocuous. Congress directed certain information to be collected about small business loans. We were curious about small business lending in America, so we directed, in this section 1071, certain covered financial institutions--I call them small banks because most business loans to small business people come from small banks. We directed small banks to start collecting information about their loans to small business people because we wanted to know and see if we could do something to make their services more efficient.

We, the Congress, asked that 13 pieces of information be collected. It is the sort of stuff that you would imagine, very routine stuff, like ``What was the date of the loan, the small business loan? How much was the loan?'' that sort of thing.

Well, the CFPB has taken our work and totally perverted it. The CFPB has promulgated a rule that totally perverts our intention in section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act.

First, we intended for only small businesses to be covered in providing this information. Now, if you look at the definition of a ``small business,'' most people use the definition that has been put out by the National Federation of Independent Business. That is the NFIB. It says that a small business is a business that has 10 or fewer people and sales of about half a million dollars a year--not according to the CFPB. They want to cast the net as far and as wide as they can. Their definition of a ``small business'' will almost double that--more than double that. They say a small business is a company with $5 million in revenue or less from the previous fiscal year, not $500,000 but $5 million. So this is going to throw the net of government much, much wider than Congress ever intended.

But, secondly, the most egregious thing the CFPB has done is they took our 13 pieces of information that we asked for, by Congress, and they expanded it to 81. All of a sudden, they want a book.

Here are some examples of what the CFPB is going to require small banks to ask of small business women and small business men when they come to the bank and ask for a loan. The bank has to ask the small business person how long it has been in business. That is fair. The bank has to ask the small business woman or small business man about its annual revenue. That is fair. But then it gets a little intrusive. It gets a lot intrusive.

The bank has to ask the small business woman or small business man what their race is. The bank has to ask the small business person about their ethnic background. The small bank has to ask the small business person if he is a male. The bank has to ask the small business person if she is a female. It should be obvious to many, but those questions have to be asked. The bank has to ask the small business person if that person is a lesbian. The bank has to ask the small business person if that person is gay. The bank has to ask that small business person if that small business person is bisexual. The small bank has to ask its customer, that small business person, if that small business person is transgender. The bank, according to the CFPB, has to ask that small business person who is applying for a loan, who just came in for a loan for the business, if that person is queer. The small bank has to ask that small business person if the small business person is intersex.

Not only does the bank have to ask those questions, those private questions, of the person from the small business applying for the loan, the person applying for the loan on behalf of the small business has to bring in every one of its owners who owns 25 percent or more, and the bank has got to start over with those people. Are you a male? Are you a female? What is

your race? Tell me about your ethnic background. Are you a lesbian? Are you gay? Are you bisexual? Are you transgender or are you queer or are you intersex?

Give me a break.

Then all of this information that is collected, this private information, has to be sent to the CFPB, and they are going to put it on their website. Are you gay? Are you lesbian? What race are you? They are going to put it on their website.

Now, the CFPB says: Well, it is going to be institutional-level data, just top-line data fields. Bull. You will be able to take this data, particularly if you are a small bank in a rural area, and be able to-- the snoops will be able to go on that public website and identify small business people in their community--how much money they are borrowing, how they answered the question about whether they were gay, how they answered the question about whether they were intersex. This is incredibly private information.

And why? Why would the CFPB need this information? Well, the truth is, they don't, but I will tell you why. The CFPB is setting these small business people--but also these small banks--up for lawsuits. That is exactly what they are doing.

What happens if a small business person goes into the bank and the small banker says: Listen, I hate to have to ask you this, but the CFPB says I have to ask you. Are you gay?

As if that is anybody's business.

The small business person says: That is none of your business, and I am not going to answer that question. I am here for a loan, not to talk about my private life. What I do in the privacy of my bedroom with a consenting adult is my opinion, Mr. Banker.

The small banker says: You are right. I am sorry. I had to ask. They made me.

If the small business person won't answer the question, the small banker can get in trouble with the CFPB.

What has the world come to?

And the CFPB doesn't care about the cost. Do you know what this is going to cost to implement every year? Four hundred million dollars. Why? And that doesn't even include the cost of actually setting up this program. That will be hundreds of millions of dollars more.

It is not like the CFPB is exactly a wizard when it comes to data security. I mean, yes, it is going to be on their public website, but in terms of the granular information, the CFPB says: Oh, don't worry; we will protect it.

Right. Like they protected it a few months ago? The personally identifiable information of 256,000 consumers, which is being held by the CFPB, was breached. And do you know what the CFPB did? They didn't tell anybody for 2 months. They acted like a rock, only dumber. We are not talking about wizards here, wizards of financial data privacy and security.

You know, I hear it all the time, and the Presiding Officer probably hears it back in his State, perhaps. But people tell me all the time: Kennedy, what is wrong with Washington, DC? Why is common sense illegal there?

This rule. This rule. What has the world come to?

So my Congressional Review Act request is to have the Senate tell the CFPB that it is none of their business--none of their business--what a private American does with another private adult American in the privacy of their bedroom. We are free, so long as it doesn't break any laws, to express our sexuality however we want to, and it is none of the CFPB's business.

With that, I ask my Senate colleagues to overturn this rule.

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