Floor Statements

Madam President, we have an issue in Louisiana--I wouldn't call it a problem--that I would like to talk about. Perhaps some of our sister States can learn from our struggles in my State. And the issue is education. I can't think of a more important subject. That is the future of my State. I think it is true in many other States.

I believe that Louisiana's future can be better than its present or its past, but the key to determining whether that is going to be the case or not is education--and I am talking specifically about elementary and secondary education--because that is what counts. In my State, it is not the price of oil; it is not what the unemployment rate is; it is not who the United States Senator is; it is not who the Governor is; it is education, pre-K through 12.

It is frustrating, I know. You know, Americans can do extraordinary things. We can unravel the human genome. We can take a diseased human heart and replace it with a brandnew one and make that thing beat. We can send a person to the Moon. But we in America struggle and we in Louisiana struggle to teach our children how to read and write and do basic math when we have 18 years to do it. I am not blaming anyone. We all share the frustration. And it is not just Louisiana; it is all across America. I understand that.

But decades ago in Louisiana, we made a decision. In fact, it was during my first job in government. I was working as legal counsel to a brandnew, reform Governor in Louisiana. He decided, and the people of Louisiana agreed with him--we all agreed on two things: No. 1, every child can learn. Now, it takes some a little bit longer. Kids mature at different times. But every child can learn. The second thing we agreed on was this: That which is measured gets done. That which is measured gets done.

We decided to implement, 30 years ago, standards for our elementary and secondary schools. One of those standards was and I think still is--that is the subject of my remarks today; I hope it still is--a graduation exam. We call it our Graduation Exit Examination 21, G-E-E. So if I say ``G-E-E'' or ``GEE,'' I am talking about our graduation exam.

We said we are going to get serious about kids. We can't have our children graduate if they can't read their diploma, and so we are going to test them. The test is not terribly rigorous. It is four subjects. It is English, it is math, it is science, and it is social studies. We grade those exams--and you don't have to pass all four. You have to pass English and math and then either social studies or science. So, really, three out of four.

There are five different grades: advanced, mastery, basic, approaching basic, and unsatisfactory. Let me tell you what that really means: A, B, C, D, and F.

You only have to make a D on your graduation examination. You only have to make a D to pass--not an A, not a B, not a C, a D. So you take four exams. You have to make a D on English, a D on math, and at least a D on either social studies or science. If you don't pass, we will give you another chance, but you have to pass to get a diploma.

Now our Board of Elementary and Secondary Education--we call it BESE--which governs elementary and secondary education in Louisiana, has decided to take us back to the Dark Ages. By a one-vote margin, supported, quite frankly, by my Governor, who is lameduck--he will be leaving soon--he makes three appointments to the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education. Everybody in America is entitled to their opinion, but I think my Governor and his team are wrong on this. They are going to send us back to the Dark Ages.

Here is the new rule: You have to pass the Graduate Exit Examination in the way I just described--unless you fail. Then you have to go to your teacher, and he or she can give you an extra-points project. Come on. Come on. Who are we kidding here?

Now, why do some want to do this? It is not the kids who want to do this; it is the adults, because not only do we grade our kids, we grade our schools, and if schools have kids who don't pass the GEE, the Graduate Exit Examination, it counts against the grade of the school. So this is all coming from the adults. They are putting themselves first, and they are not putting the kids first.

This is a massive step backward. This is an announcement to the rest of America that Louisiana has given up, that our kids are not smart enough, they are not good enough, even when we give them second or third chances, to be able to get a D on the Graduate Exit Examination, and as a result, we have to give them a special extra-points project so they can get a diploma that is not really a diploma.

The people behind this ought to hide their head in a bag. Our kids are better than that. Every one of my kids in Louisiana can learn. Sometimes they need a little bit longer. But it is not going to do them any good to give them a diploma that they can't read. It is not going to do them any good to give them a diploma that the rest of America and, frankly, the world is going to look at and go: That is not really a high school diploma because we know you failed the exam. You just got an extra-points project so the adults wouldn't look bad.

I am embarrassed by this.

This isn't the only problem we have in elementary and secondary education. I will give you one other statistic. Seventy percent of our high schools are graded A or B. Forty percent of the schools below that are graded A or B. Seventy percent of my high schools in Louisiana are not A or B

schools, OK? I wish they were--not when 40 percent of the lower grades are only A or B. Once again, the adults who don't want to be embarrassed are inflating those grades, too, and now they have started on the Graduate Exit Examination. But this is a bridge too far.

All is not lost. BESE, which, as I said, passed this rule change by one vote--and by the way, our superintendent of education was against it.

This rule change is going in front of the Louisiana Legislature for an oversight hearing and the Senate Education Committee and the House Education Committee. I hope that either the Senate or House and hopefully both will say no--no--because this change represents what George Bush, President Bush, called ``the soft bigotry of low expectations''--``the soft bigotry of low expectations.'' It has no place in this country, and it has no place in my State.

I am embarrassed that the people who are part of the education establishment in Louisiana are telling the rest of the world: Our kids are not good enough. They can't learn. So we are going to give them a diploma that is not really a diploma.

Thank you for the time today, Madam President. I wanted my colleagues to know what is going on in Louisiana. We are going to turn this rule back, and we are going to put our kids first in Louisiana, not the adults.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to talk briefly to the Senate today about two issues. With respect to the first issue, I suppose I am talking to my people back in Louisiana as much as I am talking to my colleagues in the U.S. Senate.

This is New Orleans. This is the Mississippi River, which, as you know, runs through New Orleans. Much of southeast Louisiana, including but not limited to the city of New Orleans, gets its drinking water from the Mississippi River. Of course, the Mississippi River is freshwater, and the Mississippi River is long, wide, and mighty.

The Mississippi River's source is the northern part of our State. It drains a number of other rivers. This is the southern portion of the Mississippi River. In New Orleans, it kind of meanders around and shifts to the east before it hits south again into the Gulf of Mexico, which is, of course, saltwater.

You probably never thought about this, Mr. President. Perhaps you have. Most people haven't. Why doesn't saltwater--the Mississippi River runs into the gulf, which is saltwater, and the gulf is a big area. Why doesn't saltwater from the Gulf of Mexico flow up the Mississippi River? That would be a good question.

The reason is pretty simple. As I said, the Mississippi River is long, big, wide, and mighty, and it drains a good portion of the United States. When the Mississippi River is at normal levels, it flows very, very quickly and fast, and it keeps the saltwater down here in the Gulf of Mexico at bay.

But sometimes the Mississippi River gets low, and it flows less swiftly, and that is the situation right now. When that happens--it has happened I think five times in the last three centuries--sometimes saltwater actually comes up from the gulf into the Mississippi River, which is a problem for my people in southeast Louisiana, including but not limited to New Orleans, because they rely on the Mississippi River for their drinking water because it is freshwater.

This red line represents the saltwater intrusion. Saltwater is creeping up the Mississippi River just like a thermometer. We know, based on historical evidence, that it is not likely to go all the way up the Mississippi River, but that doesn't solve our problem in Louisiana because we depend on the Mississippi River for drinking water. If it gets far enough up the Mississippi River--``it'' meaning the saltwater--then we have a real problem in southeast Louisiana.

As I say, in the last 25 years, this has happened four times--in 1999, 2002, 2022, and it is happening this year as we speak. I think the time that it happened before was in 1888, if I recall correctly.

I am an optimist who worries. I am worried about this because about 1 million of my 4.6 million people in my State depend on this river for drinking water, and we are in the middle of watching the saltwater come up the river, and we don't think it is going to stop coming up the river until sometime around, I don't know, the end of October maybe. We could be wrong.

But I want the Senate and I want my people to understand that their local, their State, and their Federal governments are dealing with this problem.

First, I want to thank President Biden. President Biden declared a disaster declaration, which allows us to get the assistance of FEMA, and I am very, very grateful for that.

No. 2, our Corps of Engineers is involved. They are very able people. Our Corps of Engineers, below the city of New Orleans, has built an underwater dam. That is what it looks like. It is like a dam. They call it a sill. I call it a dam or a levee. It is under the water. It is down below New Orleans.

Well, why in the world would the Corps of Engineers do that? Because saltwater is heavier than freshwater and when the saltwater comes up the Mississippi River, it is not coming at the top; it is coming at the bottom.

And the Corps of Engineers in a place called Myrtle Grove below New Orleans--by the way, Myrtle Grove is also known for its great fishing, wonderful fishing, and really good people. But at the area in the river next to Myrtle Grove, the corps is coming in, and they built an underwater dam.

Now, that is not going to stop all the saltwater. It is just going to slow it down and stop some of it. So some of the saltwater, despite this dam, is still flowing north, headed toward New Orleans. The corps is talking about, if necessary, adding an additional 25 feet to the underwater dam.

Right now, the underwater dam is about 55 feet. We add another 25 feet. The river at that level or at this point is about 90 feet. And they are leaving a hole in the dam, in case you were wondering, for ships to come through.

No. 3, the Corps of Engineers and FEMA are both prepared, if necessary, to deliver us freshwater, if we need it, by barge. And if you ever wonder about the might of the Federal Government and particularly our Corps of Engineers--again, I can't thank them enough-- they can deliver up to 36 million gallons of freshwater a day. So thank you, Corps of Engineers, and I want my people back home to know that, so they won't be worried.

Also, looking on the bright side--put that back up for me will you, Henson--by the way, Mr. President, with me today are two of my colleagues from my office, Mr. Henson Webre and Mr. Christian Amy. I want to thank them for their help.

Again, this is New Orleans. Here is the saltwater creeping up. Not everybody in New Orleans and in the New Orleans area and Southeast Louisiana gets their water from the Mississippi River. Some people have well water. So that is a plus.

Some facilities in New Orleans have also started installing what is called reverse osmosis filtration machines to take the saltwater out of the freshwater. And we in government stand ready and willing to advise facilities of the right to do that.

The other thing we are talking about doing--we are trying to not do this except as a last resort because it is so expensive--as you see here, the red is the saltwater; the blue is the freshwater. Folks who live down here by the saltwater and can't get water out of the Mississippi because it is too salty, we are thinking about building pipelines this direction, going north sort of along the river to get freshwater from a point in the river further up north and take it through those pipelines down south where we need it.

Now, that is expensive. It is being looked at by local governments, being looked at by the State government. We are in discussions with the Federal Government about it. It will be a last resort because it is so expensive, and I hope that the saltwater intrusion can stop. We can stop it.

Frankly, what is causing this is we are having a drought, and there is not enough water in the Mississippi River. If we could get a little rain up north, that will add to the volume of the river, and it will flow more quickly, and it will push that saltwater out.

The final thing, I want my people to understand what we are doing. This is Southeast Louisiana. It is sort of the toe of the boot. Further up here in Louisiana, we have built a minidam. We call it the Old River Control structure on the Mississippi River, and we divert some of the water out of the Mississippi River into another river in Louisiana called the Atchafalaya River.

In fact, we do that pursuant to a statute passed by Congress which says that 70 percent of the water at this point, which is way up here, has to be diverted--or kept in the Mississippi River, but 30 percent is diverted further west to the Atchafalaya River.

Why do we do that? Because the corps decided years and years and years ago, that river at that point is so strong and so mighty and moving so quickly and so swiftly and that if we did not divert some of that water, the Mississippi would change course and, instead of flowing through Baton Rouge and New Orleans, it would change course and flow this way to the gulf. So years ago, the corps said, We need to take some water out.

The corps is thinking about opening that dam up, if necessary, at the Old River Control structure and putting some of that water back into the Mississippi River that it is diverting right now to increase the flow of the river, which will, of course, push the saltwater back out.

So I appreciate, Mr. President, the Senate's patience in allowing me to explain this. As I say, I want to thank President Biden for his declaration. I

want to thank FEMA. I want to thank the Corps of Engineers.

I don't want my people to worry. Your folks in government have pounced on this issue like a ninja, and I am not saying we have it solved, but we are doing everything we can to get us through this.

Senator Feinstein, Godspeed.

I had the pleasure of serving with Senator Feinstein on the Judiciary Committee. I also served with Dianne on the Appropriations Committee. In fact, we served on the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee. Dianne was the chair and I was the ranking member.

Dianne, you died with your boots on, and I think that was one of the things she most wanted to do.

Senator Feinstein and I didn't agree on much, but she was a delight to work with. She understood politics and government, especially today. It takes a big heart and a lot of wind and a thick skin, and that is especially true today.

There are some people in this city who didn't want Dianne to finish her term for political reasons. They tried to chew her up and tried to spit her out, and they tried to step on her. But they couldn't do it because Dianne was tough as a boot, and she wanted to die with her boots on, as a Member of this august body. And I am going to miss her.

Godspeed, Senator Feinstein.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2968

Mr. President, I am here today to try to extend the National Flood Insurance Program. It appears to me--I hope I am wrong, and I know, Mr. President, you agree with me--that we are headed toward a shutdown. If that happens, that means that the National Flood Insurance Program will come to a halt.

I don't want people to worry too much. If you already have national flood insurance, the program will continue to pay claims. But as long as government is shut down, you will not be able to buy new insurance. That is important because flood insurance is a huge part of the commerce of our real estate markets in America.

For most Americans, the purchase of a home is their biggest single financial decision they will ever make. In many areas--not just coastal States but many other States--you cannot purchase a home, if you have to borrow money, without flood insurance. So if we allow the National Flood Insurance Program to expire, it is going to shut down home sales where the entity loaning the money requires flood insurance. It is just going to shut it down. The real estate industry, for a variety of reasons--in part because of President Biden's inflation--is already having a tough time, and this will make it worse.

My bill would take the current flood insurance program and just extend it ``as is'' until December 31, 2023. If we don't do this--I want to make this clear, as well. Some of my fellow citizens may be saying: What is the big deal? Just don't buy it from the Federal Government.

You can't buy it from anybody else. The Federal program, imperfect as it is, is the only game in town. So if you are ready to buy a home and close on a home and you go to a mortgage lender and say, ``I need to borrow the money,'' and they say you have to buy flood insurance to get the loan, the Federal Government is the only entity you can go to. You cannot buy, for all practical purposes, private flood insurance in America today.

I mentioned that the NFIP was imperfect. I understate it. As I said yesterday on the floor, the National Flood Insurance Program, as administered by FEMA, is a mess. As I said yesterday, it looks like someone knocked over a urine sample.

FEMA made the program even worse a year or so ago with its Risk Rating 2.0. It went out and hired a consultant to design a new algorithm that made changes in the program without telling policy holders the basis for those changes. I met with FEMA a number of times. I said: Can I see your algorithm? They said: If we show you, we have to kill you--and I am in Congress. We are in litigation with FEMA right now.

Let me say it again. Risk Rating 2.0 made it even worse than it already was.

Ever since I have been in the U.S. Senate, I have been working with, I don't know, 20 different Senators and probably 50 to 100 House members who are involved to try to fix the flood insurance program, and it has been very difficult. We haven't been able to do it, but we will continue to try.

But in the meantime, the only thing worse than a bad flood insurance program is no flood insurance because, as imperfect as it may be, FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program is the only game in town. And if we allow this program to expire, it is going to

really, really, really hurt the American people. It is going to really, really hurt the real estate industry. It is going to really, really hurt folks out there who have saved money, and they are ready to buy a home, but they can't do it because they can't purchase flood insurance.

For that reason, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 2968--that is my bill that would just extend the current program for flood insurance, imperfect as it may be, until December 31, 2023. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Reserving the right to modify or not modify.

Senator Paul, as usual, makes some very good points. I agree with him wholeheartedly that the National Flood Insurance Program is a mess. It needs to be fixed.

I want to make the record clear that in Louisiana, my people are working people. My coast is a working coast. My people aren't wealthy millionaires who have three or four homes on the beach. These are ordinary people who get up every day, go to work, obey the law, pay their taxes, and try to do the right thing by their kids.

They can barely afford one home. It is not only the coast that we are talking about. In 2016, in the middle of my State--again, not mansions, just working-class people--we had 24 inches of rainfall in about a day and a half.

The homes that flooded--and many of them did--were not anywhere near a body of water. If you get 24 inches of rain in a day and a half, your home is going to flood. I don't care if you are living on Pike's Peak. So this program is meant to help those people as well.

But in pointing that out, I don't want to take anything away from Senator Paul's excellent points. He is, however, mistaken in one critical respect: When you buy flood insurance through the Federal National Flood Insurance Program, the most you can collect on your home as a result of one flood is $250,000. It is not accurate to say that a million-dollar home can collect a million dollars in damages from a flood. That is just not true. If there is a flood and you own a million-dollar home and you own a $250,000 home and the owners of those two homes both have national flood insurance, the most under the policy they can collect is $250,000.

So why do you want to tell a person who owns a million-dollar home that they can't insure their home? You are just telling them they can't buy flood insurance, so the flood insurance program has less money to cash flow. It makes no sense.

Now, Senator Paul is correct, and it is one of the things we are trying to fix, that there has been abuse in terms of some homes. Senator Paul mentioned the example of Louisiana; but there are other States, many others, where homes have flooded three or four times, and they keep getting flood insurance.

If I can say anything good about the current National Flood Insurance Program today, I would say that FEMA has taken steps to try to prevent that from happening so that if you flood a certain number of times, you have to move. And I know the Senator didn't--I don't think I am disagreeing with him on that. I think we are in agreement.

But let me tell you the second and main reason I can't accept Senator Paul's change. For me, it has to do with what is right. There are probably 20 different Senators--well, there are a hundred Senators who care about flood insurance, but there are about 20 different Senators who want to be involved in any changes made to this program. And I dare say there are 50 to 100 members of the House.

Now, as the Presiding Officer knows, when we bring a bill to the floor for unanimous consent, we don't just walk down here one day and do it.

We let all of our Senators--fellow colleagues, our fellow Senators-- know what we are about to do. So if they want to come down and object, they can do that. And that is what I did with my bill, which just keeps the current program and extends it until December 31, so we will get past the shutdown and we won't keep people from buying homes.

But Senator Paul's changes have not been sent to all members of the Senate. It is called a hotline. And I anticipate that the Senator will have other changes, and that is fine.

The easy thing for me to do today would be to agree with one of his changes. I am not sure it makes that much difference because the amount of damages you can claim on a flood is $250,000, but the easiest thing for me to do today would be to agree to one of Senator Paul's changes, but that would be stabbing my colleagues in the back.

Because I can assure you, knowing how many of my colleagues feel about the National Flood Insurance Program, they would want to be here today to weigh in. And I just can't do that to them, even though it would allow me to get this passed.

I also think that if we make changes to the National Flood Insurance Program, those 50 to 100 House members that I am talking about are likely--some of them are likely not to allow the changes, and that is why they would object to it. And that is why my objective has been--and I need to stand behind it--to just take the current program and extend it to December 31.

So for that reason, I don't agree to the modification.

Reserving the right to accept or not accept. Again, Senator Paul--I understand his points, and they are very good ones. I would point out that his proposal--we have about 84.7 million owned or occupied homes in the United States. Let's call it 85 million homes in the United States.

Senator Paul's amendment would exclude 52.5 million of them. Five hundred thousand dollars on a home is a lot of money, but I think in places like California and Connecticut and New York, where we have seen cost of living different from my State, there are plenty of ordinary Americans, middle-class Americans, who have scrimped and saved to put together the money to borrow $500,000, and I don't want to hurt them.

But the second and the main reason I can't agree to Senator Paul's proposal: I am just not going to stab my fellow Senators in the back. They do not know about these changes that are being proposed. They may be good changes, and I like the way Senator Paul is thinking. But let me say it again, I know of at least 20 Senators, some of whom are not in Washington who care about flood insurance. And if I started agreeing to changes for the short-term satisfaction of getting to pass a bill, it is just not worth it to me.

And I am not going to stab them in the back. They have the right to be here and participate in these changes, and they are not here because they don't know about it. So for that reason, I do not concur in Senator Paul's amendment.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I fear I am not being clear, and I am sorry for that. Let me say it again. If you own a $250,000 home and you own a $750,000 home, neither one of you can buy more than $250,000 worth of insurance, because the maximum amount of insurance that you can buy through the National Flood Insurance Program is $250,000.

So what is the point of excluding someone who owns a $750,000 home? I realize it is in vogue to denigrate rich people, but they can't buy any more insurance. It would be different if someone could buy $750,000 worth of flood insurance who owned a $750,000 home, but they can't. It is capped at $250,000.

So I have to respectfully disagree with my friend on that. And, No. 2--I don't want to belabor this--I am not going to stab my fellow Senators in the back. The 20-plus Senators with whom I have spoken to try to negotiate a new

and better Flood Insurance Program do not know about these changes.

And I would like to agree to Senator Paul's suggestions, but if I do, I am stabbing my fellow Senators in the back, and it is just not worth it to me because they don't know about any of this.

For that reason, I respectfully object to Senator Paul's amendment.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if I own a $10 million home--and I assure you I do not--and my neighbor's home is $250,000, that is its value, which is more like it in Louisiana. And we both go to an insurance agent, and we say: We want to buy national flood insurance because we can't get a mortgage without it. Then the insurance agent is going to say: OK. Neighbor whose home is worth $250,000, I can write you a policy, maximum $250,000.

And then they are just going to turn to me with my $10 million home-- which I can assure you is fictitious--and the agent is going to say, I can only sell you $250,000.

The suggestion that somebody with a $10 million home is being insured for $10 million is just not accurate. It is just not accurate.

So what good is it going to do to tell someone in a $10 million home who wants to buy $250,000 worth of flood insurance--the same amount as his neighbor--what good is it going to do to exclude him?

Some can beat themselves on the chest and say, boy, we stuck it to those rich people. But they are not getting any more insurance. And what it is going to mean to the program is there is going to be fewer and less premiums coming into the program, which will make it insolvent.

You can see the difficulty in trying to reach agreement on the forms.

That is why I am going to say it again. And I have proposed a clean, if you will, proposal that will just extend the current program, imperfect as it may be, until December 31.

If we don't do this, it is going to really, really, really hurt. It is not going to hurt the rich folks. It is going to hurt the ordinary, middle-class Americans who are trying to buy a home.

And the second and final reason, if it were, or the third and final reason, frankly, if it were up to me to get this passed--because I am really worried about it, as you can tell--I would probably agree to Rand's proposal, but I am just not going to stab my colleagues in the back.

They don't know about this proposal, and I think that of the 20 or so of my colleagues whom I have met with about changing the Flood Insurance Program, I know they would like to have their say. And if I agree to the Senator's proposal today--because they don't know about his proposal--I would be stabbing them in the back, and I just can't do it, Mr. President. It is just not worth it to me.

For that reason, I respectfully object.

Mr. President, you are getting tired of my saying this, I know. This rich $10 million American that Senator Paul keeps talking about can't buy any more insurance than the American who owns the $250,000 home. He just can't.

And I am going to try again. I will be back tomorrow, and like the terminator, ``I'll be back.''

Because in trying to punish the rich, when they can't buy any more insurance than the ordinary American, Mr. President, like you and me-- 250,000, that is the limit for the rich American and the middle-class American--this is going to put the entire real estate industry in jeopardy. And it is also going to put a lot of ordinary, middle-class Americans out there who have scrimped and saved, and they have got the money for the downpayment, and they are ready to buy a home, but they are not going to be able to buy it because they can't get flood insurance, and their mortgage lender requires it.

And by the time government opens back up--I hope it is a short period of time, but we don't know--those interest rates instead of 7.5 percent could be 8 percent.

And look, I get the politics of beating up on the rich, but the rich have nothing to do with this. This is about ordinary Americans.

But I appreciate, Mr. President, your patience in listening to me today. And with that, I think I need to yield the floor, do I not, Mr. President?

To whom should I yield it?

Senator Hirono from the great State of Hawaii or Senator Schumer?

Are you seeking recognition, or are you just waving at each other?

Of course. I just work here. I am not management.

Mr. President, I am back again to try to keep the National Flood Insurance Program from expiring.

I will be the first to concede that America needs a national flood insurance program that looks like we designed it on purpose. What we have now does not look like that. To call it imperfect is an understatement. But the only thing worse than having what we have right now is to not have a national flood insurance program at all.

The fact of the matter is, for all practical purposes, people who are at risk for flooding cannot buy flood insurance from the private markets, which means they can't buy a home, which means their mortgages would be foreclosed upon. That is why we have a National Flood Insurance Program.

Should we improve it? Yes. I have been trying for 7 years. We need to keep trying. But we are not going to get it done over the next couple of days.

I believe government is going to shut down tomorrow--or at least Saturday, rather. I hope not, but I believe it is. And if it does, the National Flood Insurance Program will be shut down.

I don't want to scare people half to death. It doesn't mean that FEMA will stop--which runs the NFIP--will stop paying claims, but it will stop commerce, if nothing else, because FEMA can't issue new policies. And, again, I realize it is not perfect. But we are in hurricane season.

Let me say that again. We are in hurricane season.

Is this important to my State? You bet. But it is not just important to my State; it is important to every single coastal State. And that is why I would like to see us extend this program for a very, very short period of time.

My bill is a clean extension. It doesn't make any changes to the program. I wish I had the authority to make changes, but I don't. This bill will just extend what we have now, imperfect as it may be--and Lord knows it is imperfect--through December 31, 2023. That will give us some additional time to design a program that looks like somebody designed it on purpose.

Mr. President, for that reason, I ask unanimous consent--did I mention, Mr. President, that my State is in the middle of hurricane season?

Let me say that again--and so is every coastal State. And we are going to shut down the National Flood Insurance Program in the middle of hurricane season, the U.S. Senate? What planet did we just parachute in from?

For that reason, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill, S. 2968, which is at the desk; I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed--and passed--and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President. Maybe the homes that my good friend Senator Paul is describing are homes in Kentucky, but they are not homes in Louisiana. The homes in Louisiana that need flood insurance are not mansions. These are homes of working people. These are modest homes being paid for by people who get up every day, go to work, obey the law, pay their taxes, and try to do the right thing by their kids.

I don't know about the millionaires that Senator Paul is talking about. Again, maybe they are in Kentucky. But they are not in Louisiana. My coast is a working coast.

Point 2: What Senator Paul proposes is to limit flood insurance to $250,000.

The median sales price of a home in America today is $430,300. Now, there are a lot of reasons for that. One of the reasons for that is President Biden's inflation. But those are the facts. In Louisville, KY, the median sales price is $271,000. In Dallas, TX, it is $389,000. In Miami, it is $605,000.

Why do you want to fool the American people? Why do you want to ``reform'' a flood insurance program that is going to deny flood insurance?

Do some people own second homes? Yes. I thought Republicans weren't supposed to penalize success in America. I thought our position was that if you worked hard and accumulated wealth, first, you should get to keep most of it. Why? Because you earned it. And second, we should applaud success in America. If you earn enough to buy a second home, we shouldn't discourage that. The third reason I cannot agree to my friend Senator Paul's suggestion is because he knows as well as I do that many of us have worked together to try to reform the Flood Insurance Program. We haven't reached consensus yet. We are going to keep working. But if I agree to Senator Paul's suggestion today, both he and I will be selling out our colleagues who would not agree to these changes, and they are not here right now.

The easy thing for me to do is to accept the Senator's proposal, but I don't play that way. I am not going to do it without giving every Member of this Senate who would like input into Senator Paul's suggestions the chance to object as well. I don't play that way.

For that reason, I object.

Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague Senator Paul and his comments. I, like him, would like to continue to work with our colleagues to reform this program. But when reality calls, you shouldn't hang up, and that is what we have done here today, because this government is going to shut down. I hope I am wrong--God, I hope I am wrong--but I think this government is going to shut down midnight Sunday night, and the National Flood Insurance Program is going to shut down with it, right smack dab in the middle of hurricane season.

I thought the first role of government--I thought this is what Republicans believe; I thought this is what Libertarians believe--the first role of government is to protect people and property. And all the U.S. Senate has done today is expose ordinary Americans--not millionaires; ordinary Americans--who live in modest homes, who get up every day--I am going to say it again--and go to work and obey the law and pay their taxes and try to do the right thing by their kids and whose home is their biggest asset. We are going to tell them: It is OK. Even though you can't buy the flood insurance from a private provider, the government is going to stop you from buying it from the National Flood Insurance Program right in the middle of hurricane season.

That is not what this country is all about.

All my bill would have done--and I will be back. Just like the Terminator, I will be back. All my bill would do would be to take the current program--the current program, I will concede--I agree with Senator Paul--the current program looks like somebody knocked over a urine sample. It is that bad. But we need to work to improve it. But in the meantime, we do not need to allow it to expire.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I grew up in a wonderful small town in Louisiana called Zachary.

Now, today, Zachary is a city. It is five times larger than in the days I spent there growing up because Zachary, a number of years ago, got very serious about improving elementary and secondary education. The Presiding Officer knows something about that. So Zachary is much larger today, and if anyone ever doubts that growth and economic development is centered around quality public education, all you have to do is look at Zachary.

But when I grew up in Zachary, it was very small--one stoplight. We were so small, we didn't have a town drunk; several people had to take turns. But I loved it. I loved Zachary High School. You know, some people did not like high school. I am not one of them. I cared about two things: basketball and cheerleaders. And I wasn't very good at either one, but I had fun trying.

I also loved baseball, in part because my dad, my late father, was a baseball fan. And I was an OK fielder in baseball, but I had to quit the sport because I couldn't hit a curve. I was OK with the fastball, but I couldn't hit a curve. And I remember my coach telling me: Kennedy, keep your eye on the ball, OK? Keep your eye on the ball.

And I tried, but I just couldn't do it.

My purpose in rising today is to suggest that we should keep our eye on the ball. We are faced with many difficult issues in the Senate today. We always are, but I think that is especially true today. My colleague Senator Cornyn just talked about one: immigration. Of course, the war in Ukraine is on everyone's mind. And I could go on and on and on.

But I don't want my colleagues to forget about one of the most important issues of all facing the American people today, and that is the cost of living in our extraordinary country--inflation. In my State, the median household income for a family of four is about $55,000. That means half of our families make more and half of our families make less. But the mean is $55,000 for a family of four.

As a result of President Biden's inflation--and, as an aside, I would note, I say this with no joy whatsoever--inflation in America today is manmade, and that man's name is President Joe Biden. In my State, where the mean household income is $55,000, the average American family is paying $800 a month more--a month; not a year, a month more--to live in this wonderful country as a result of Bidenomics. That is $9,600 a year that a family of four making $55,000 a year has to find.

And my people, they have maxed out their credit cards, and they have spent their savings. And they borrowed money, and they have had to take money out of their children's 529 college savings program. It is strangling my people. It is not any better in other States.

I looked at the numbers this morning. What we call overall inflation right now is about 3.7 percent. Core inflation, if you take out food and energy prices, as many of the economists like to do, is 4.3 percent. So 3.7 percent overall, 4.3 percent if you take out food and energy. Now, we are doing better. A year ago, those numbers were double. And I am so pleased that inflation has fallen just a bit, but I want you to understand what that means.

Falling inflation just means that prices--they are still rising, but they are not rising as fast as they were. Let me say that again. Falling inflation just means prices are still going up every month, every day, but they are not going up as fast as they were. We call that disinflation. Falling inflation also means that prices overall are not going down. That is deflation. My point is, even though inflation is falling--and I am so glad it is--all that means is that prices are not going up as fast as they were.

And we are going to be stuck with these high prices. They are going to be permanent, even if inflation goes to zero. What does that mean? Well, let's look at basic goods. Even if inflation goes to zero tomorrow, since February of 2021, electricity is up 24 percent. We are stuck with that. When inflation falls, electricity is not going to go back down to where it was. We are going to continue to pay 24 percent more. And gas--in Louisiana, gas is up 71 percent. We are stuck with that, even if inflation falls to zero. Eggs are up 28 percent; potato chips are up 28 percent; bread, 28 percent--permanent--coffee, 30 percent; rice, 28 percent; flour, 29 percent; milk, 17 percent; ice cream, 20 percent; chicken, per pound, 24 percent. And that is why the American people, in large part, are struggling so economically.

You should not have to sell blood plasma in America, the wealthiest country in all of human history, in order to go to the grocery store. It is not any worse, our inflation--which I am afraid these high prices, as I said, are going to be permanent. It is not any better if you look at necessities by category. All goods--as a result of President Biden's inflation, starting in February of 2021 and running through today, all goods are up an average of 17 percent.

How many American families have seen their income go up 17 percent? Not many. Food--all food, average--an average--is 19 percent. Housing is up 16 percent. Clothing is up 10 percent. Used cars and trucks are up 32 percent. And even if we can get inflation down to zero, we are going to be stuck with those prices. New cars are up 20 percent. Mortgage rates are up 161 percent.

Let me end as I began. We have a lot of issues that we are struggling with right now, but among the five things that moms and dads in America worry about when they lie down to sleep at night and can't is the cost of living in our wonderful country.

And these are the people who made this extraordinary country. America is not great because of the Federal Government. America is great because of ordinary people doing extraordinary things--people who just get up every day, go to work, obey the law, pay their taxes, and try to do the right thing by their kids.

President Biden's inflation is strangling a free people. The American people deserve better. And I don't want us to lose sight of that fact as we grapple with other important issues.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 2391 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; 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.

Madam President, will it be in order for me to explain

I withdraw my unanimous consent request.

Madam President, in a few moments, I am going reassert my unanimous consent; but, first, I wanted to tell you why I rise today in our Senate. It has to do with flood insurance.

The National Flood Insurance Program, which is administered by FEMA, is going to expire in 17 days, September 30. About 5 million Americans depend on national flood insurance, as you know. Up until recently, private insurers would not provide flood insurance. The Federal Government, for that reason, decided a number of years ago to implement its own program, and it is administered by FEMA.

The National Flood Insurance Program is far from perfect. I don't want to give the impression that I think that somehow it is a model of efficiency because it is not, especially after its implementation of risk rating 2.0.

Having said that, it is an economic--``it'' meaning the Federal flood insurance program--it is an economic and commercial necessity. It is almost impossible to buy a home in an area that has the potential of flooding--which is everywhere now--without ever being able to get flood insurance.

My bill is a simple bill. It does nothing but extend the Federal flood insurance program, which, again, is about to expire on September 30, in 17 days. All my bill does is extend it, as is, by 1 year through September 30, 2024.

If there is a threat--and there obviously is--the government is going to shut down, I do not want to risk allowing the NFIP to expire during hurricane season, which we happen to be in.

I mentioned 5 million Americans depend on flood insurance. Well, 500,000 of those Americans are in my State of Louisiana. What would happen if we allow the NFIP, the National Flood Insurance Program, to expire? Well, for one thing, the NFIP would be prohibited from issuing new policies during that period of time, which would shut down commerce and the real estate business.

Existing NFIP policies--I don't want to scare anyone. If, for some reason,

the flood insurance program expires, existing policies are still in effect until their expiration date and claims will continue to be paid as long as FEMA has money. However, the Federal requirement that you have to purchase flood insurance under certain circumstances to get a mortgage would be suspended, which means many mortgage companies would not loan money to homeowners.

If we allow the NFIP to expire, the National Flood Insurance Program would not be able to borrow money from Treasury. Their authority to borrow money would be reduced from the current $30 billion to about $1 billion, which is not much money, as you know, Madam President, to recover from a national disaster.

The National Association of Realtors has suggested that during the lapse of the NFIP--about 13 years ago, we allowed it to expire. At that time, just in my State alone, about 1,400 residential home sale closings had to be canceled.

Let me say it again. I know the flood insurance program is not perfect. I will be the first to say that. I will lead the parade. A lot of work needs to be done on it, but the only thing worse than what we have is nothing. It will shut down commerce in terms of real estate in this country. And in 17 days, September 30 of this year, the National Flood Insurance Program expires.

All my bill does is one thing: It extends it 1 year. For that reason, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 2391, which is my bill, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; 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.

Madam President, I appreciate Senator Lee's remarks.

I know he has concerns, as well he should.

I am sorry. I will start over.

Madam President, I appreciate Senator Lee's remarks. His objection does disappoint me; but I appreciate his remarks, and I share his concern about reforming the Federal replenishment program.

It doesn't look like someone designed it on purpose. It should look like someone designed it on purpose. It should be reformed. There aren't 60 votes right now to reform the program, and we don't have time to do it in the next 17 days. We could, if our majority leader would vacate all other business on the floor and we worked like most Americans work, but you and I both know that is not likely to happen.

As imperfect as the program is, I will be back to reurge this unanimous consent. This is the worst possible time to allow our National Flood Insurance Program to expire for my State, imperfect as it is, because we are right in the middle of hurricane season.

I also want to point out, as I told Senator Lee before, I am certainly willing to discuss with him putting a cap on the amount of insurance offered. And I will tell you why.

A mischaracterization--that is probably the wrong word. A characterization that is irrelevant to my State with respect to flood insurance is as follows: that flood insurance just benefits a lot of multimillionaires who live on the coast and could afford, frankly, to even be uninsured. And that may be true in some States. Certainly, if it is true, I am certainly not denigrating the folks who were successful enough to be able to buy a beach home. My only point is that is not true of Louisiana.

Insurance of 500,000 people who rely on flood insurance in my State are just like you and me. They just get up every day. They go to work. They obey the law. They pay their taxes. They try to save a little bit for retirement, and they try to do the right things by their

kids. They are not millionaires. They are working women and working men. They have to have this insurance. I just wanted to make that point for the record.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am going to talk for a few minutes about NATO, but before I do that, I want to make two preliminary points.

I believe that America's aid to Ukraine is not charity. I believe that aid is in America's national security interest, and I have voted accordingly.

I am convinced that Vladimir Putin, President Xi Jinping, and the Ayatollah of Iran are working together. I am convinced that their objective is to have Russia dominate Central and Eastern Europe; the Ayatollah from Iran dominate the Middle East; and China, through President Xi, dominate the Indo-Pacific, Sub-Sahara Africa, and South America. That is not a world that is safe for the United States of America. That certainly isn't a world that is safe for democracy. That is point one.

Point two, I have been sorely disappointed at the refusal of the U.S. Senate to appoint or to pass a bill that would allow the President to appoint--confirmed by the U.S. Senate--a special inspector general to follow the money in Ukraine.

Once again, I have voted to send that money to Ukraine not as an act of charity but because I believe it is in America's national security interest. But that money didn't just fall from Heaven. That money that we sent to Ukraine--we thank Heaven for it, but it came out of the pockets of the American taxpayer. I understand that we have an inspector general from the Department of Defense following the money, and I don't mean to be overtly critical.

I would point out as an aside that I find it somewhat ironic that the Department of Defense inspector general says ``We have got this,'' but yet the Department of Defense has never been audited. Ever. Never. The Department

of Defense is the only Agency in the U.S. Government that has never been audited, and the American people know that.

That is why I and a number of my colleagues have asked this Senate to pass a bill to allow the President to pick a special inspector general of his choosing to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate to follow every single dollar we are sending to Ukraine and to answer to the Members of the Senate, Members of the House, and, most importantly, to the American people.

Many Republicans and many Democrats have supported that effort, but many Democrats and many Republicans on both sides of the aisle have refused. Now, I am going to keep trying, but, as I said, this money didn't just fall from Heaven; it came out of people's pockets.

(Ms. BALDWIN assumed the Chair.)

Madam President, a word about NATO. For the past 18 months, the United States and our NATO allies have worked together to support our Ukrainian friends as they push back against Russian President Vladimir Putin's violent attack on their sovereignty.

Putin's war in Ukraine is illegal, and it has presented one of the most serious challenges that NATO--the North Atlantic Treaty Organization--has faced in decades. As with many challenges in life, I believe that the difficulties we face today can make NATO stronger tomorrow. I believe that. But that will only happen if we are honest with each other. Friends tell friends the truth. Friends tell friends the truth.

Here is the truth as I see it: NATO is one of the most impactful defense PACs in all of human history. The United States is a proud NATO member. The American people support NATO. But it is also no secret that some of our friends in NATO have not been taking their own defense and defense spending seriously, and they had not been taking their own defense and defense spending seriously even before Vladimir Putin began his illegal assault on Ukraine.

As the full extent of Putin's cruelty unfolded last year, NATO leaders--they appeared at first to regard it as a wake-up call, and that is a good thing. It was a wake-up call for many people throughout the world. But sometime, somehow, over the past year, those same countries fell back asleep.

You see, when Putin began his march into Ukraine, key NATO leaders said that they would start spending 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense. That is a promise that they had made before but had reneged on until Putin's assault. But it took less than a year after Putin entered Ukraine for those same leaders to begin to renege again, and that is just a fact. Friends tell friends the truth. Recent analysis shows that as of today, just 11 out of the 31 countries currently in NATO are on track to fulfill their 2 percent defense spending obligation.

Now, this is becoming a frustrating pattern for some of our NATO allies. As a smart person once said, history doesn't repeat itself, but sometimes it rhymes, and that is the case here. If you take a look at NATO today and compare it to NATO in 2014, it, frankly, would make Michael Avenatti blush.

Let me paint the picture for you. NATO countries first agreed to spend 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense in 2006. The 2 percent figure was designed, as the Presiding Officer knows, to be a floor, not a ceiling. And this didn't mean--this promise made by all NATO countries in 2006--this didn't mean that each country was required to cut a check to NATO. That is not what it meant. It just meant that each country would spend 2 percent of its gross domestic product on itself--on itself--in its own military and in its own national security. Why? Because all NATO countries understood then that our alliance was stronger when everyone pulled their weight.

Now, we know a lot of what has happened since then. The world economy sank into a recession in 2008. We all felt the brunt of that, including the American people. But for some of our friends in NATO, that 2 percent commitment fell apart. After the great recession, as we call it, just three NATO members--three--fulfilled their promise to invest 2 percent or more in defense. Do you know who took note? Vladimir Putin.

In 2014--fast-forward a few years--Putin invaded Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula. Putin made it clear that he intended to take that key block of land on the Black Sea and make it his own, and he did. This was a blatant violation of Ukrainian sovereignty. It was an unmistakable foreshadowing as well of what would come.

Now, Putin's aggression outraged NATO. It should have. It outraged all fairminded, freedom-loving people. At a conference that year, 2014, in Wales, each member country of NATO reaffirmed their commitment to spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense by 2024.

At the time, President Obama was President. In a speech at the conference in Wales where each country pledged to spend 2 percent--the second time it made the pledge--President Obama said:

[T]his commitment makes clear that NATO will not be

complacent.

I remember when the President said that.

President Obama also said:

Our Alliance will reverse the decline in defense spending

and rise to meet the challenges that we face in the 21st

century.

He later added:

Here in Wales, we also sent a strong message to Russia that

actions have consequences.

Well, that turned out to be debatable. By 2021, just a few years later, only seven NATO members were spending the minimum 2 percent on defense, and that is just a fact. Friends tell friends the truth. In fact, President Trump was met with scorn when he asked our friends in NATO to keep their word and reinvest in defense. Germany's Foreign Minister, Heiko Maas, said:

Our common response today to the President of the United

States and his assertion of ``America First'' must be

``Europe United.''

Apparently, Germany and others felt that upholding their pledge to spend 2 percent on their own defense was somehow an ``America First'' policy. And do you know who took note? Vladimir Putin.

Flash-forward to 2022. Putin's tanks are rolling farther into Ukraine. And just like in 2014, our NATO friends issued statements a third time once again pledging to spend 2 percent of their gross domestic product on their own security. Yet, today, despite Putin's ongoing attack on Ukraine, today, some of our friends in NATO have already stopped or postponed their 2 percent spending plans, and that is just a fact. Friends tell friends the truth.

French President Macron, for example, promised to increase France's defense spending in the days following Putin's invasion. I remember when he made that promise. But French officials have also announced that it will take until 2025 to hit the 2 percent defense spending threshold. Similarly, Italy announced it would not hit 2 percent until 2028. Spain said it won't hit its 2 percent goal until 2029. Belgium said it won't hit its 2 percent goal until 2035.

The war is going on.

To be fair, Belgium and Spain, both good friends of America, have made some small progress in their defense spending over the past year. I want to make that clear. They may come through eventually. But France's spending has hardly changed at all, and Italy will actually spend less on defense this year, in the middle of the war which is happening in Europe, than it did in 2021, before Putin even entered Ukraine.

Germany's failure to follow through on its 2 percent commitment is especially disappointing and consequential. As the world's fourth largest economy--Germany is the world's fourth largest economy behind only the United States of America, China, and Japan, the world's fourth largest economy. So Germany's defense spending shortfall, and it is a shortfall, leaves a much bigger hole. We are talking about a lot of money. Germany will only spend 1.6 percent of its GDP on defense in 2023. That is $18.1 billion short of the commitment that it has made not once, not twice, but three times.

Now, NATO is an alliance. It means we are friends, and we are. It means we know that we are stronger together. It means that if you come for one of us, you are going to have to fight all of us. That is what it means.

At the end of the day, an alliance, though, is just a promise. That is all it is, but it is built on mutual trust. It states that we won't leave each other to fight threats alone, and that is what NATO is supposed to stand for and I am very proud of that and so are the American people. We support NATO.

But when countries in NATO choose not to keep their commitment to spend 2 percent on their own defense, they weaken the alliance of NATO. It shows us and it shows our enemies that we cannot count on those countries to step up to help keep all of us safe. And it tells Putin-- it tells Putin that some NATO members are content sitting back and waiting, rather than remaining strong together, and that is just a fact. Friends tell friends the truth.

Now, the United States of America, we keep our promises. And all along, every year through the history of NATO, we have proudly invested in our defense to the benefit of our allies--to our own benefit but to the benefit of our allies. And it was important to our allies in Europe. It was.

I don't know what would have happened in Europe had the American people not come to Ukraine's rescue. Putin may be in Paris right now, for all I know, God forbid.

Now, a few of our NATO friends have kept their commitment, and I want to thank them. Our friends in Greece, for example, our friends in the United Kingdom, our friends in Estonia, they spent 2 percent of their GDP on defense before Putin invaded. Our friends in Lithuania and in Hungary and Romania and Slovakia, they will all reach the 2-percent threshold by the end of this year. And that is a good thing. Thank you, Greece. Thank you, United Kingdom. Thank you, Estonia. Thank you, Lithuania and Hungary and Romania and Slovakia, for keeping your word.

Now, Finland--Finland just joined NATO. We are so pleased. Our friends in Finland spent 2 percent on defense before joining NATO, but they didn't use the alliance as a reason for taking their foot off the gas. Instead, Finland increased their defense spending even more to 2.4 percent of GDP. Thank you, Finland. I hope our allies, which have been nestled safely under the NATO umbrella for years without pulling their financial weight, will take note of Finland's dedication.

Let me say it again: Thank you, Finland.

And we have got to commend Poland. Poland spent 2 percent on defense long before Putin invaded Ukraine, but over the past 2 years, it hasn't spent 2 percent--Poland hasn't. It nearly doubled its defense spending to 4.3 percent. It is investing that money, in part, by buying American weapons, and it is showing Putin that Poland is serious about its sovereignty and that Poland is serious about freedom. By the end of this decade, Poland is on pace to have more tanks than the United Kingdom, than Germany, than France, than the Netherlands, than Belgium and Italy put together--put together. Thank you, Poland.

Now, I understand you don't have to be Mensa material to understand that Putin's threat is more visceral when it is happening next door, and of course Poland is much closer to Russia than Germany or France is. I get that. But when you are allies, when you are friends, when you have promised not once, not twice, but three times to have each other's backs, you are not only supposed to think of yourself and your proximity to the threat.

You know, as Americans, we have got an entire ocean between us and Russia. We have got an entire ocean as our buffer against Putin's tanks. But I doubt that Germany or France--both good friends, love them to death--but I doubt that Germany or France would support the United States backing away because we aren't close enough to the shelling to be bothered.

Let me be frank. Allies through NATO have pledged to have each other's backs, and I see no sense in bubble-wrapping it. That starts by putting your money where your mouth is.

I want to be frank again. Some of our friends in NATO have engaged in a cycle of broken promises time and time and time again. Putin shows his cruel aggression, and horrified European leaders pledged to invest in defense. Then Putin's aggression maybe falls off the front page of the paper, and leaders forget their promise to invest until Putin's rockets start blowing up another city.

It has been more than a year, as the Presiding Officer knows as well as I do, since Putin sent Russian tanks and troops into Ukraine. And maybe for some the horror of it all has worn off, maybe. It hasn't worn off for most Americans, and it sure hasn't worn off for Ukraine. Citizens of a sovereign Ukraine are still dodging missiles on their own streets, and Putin is still watching too many NATO members bury their heads and drag their feet. And so is President Xi Jinping.

Now, I don't mean to offend anyone--I don't--but friends tell friends the truth, and everyone in NATO is a friend. And I am so proud that the United States of America is a member of NATO. But NATO is only as strong as our confidence in one another. If we want to strengthen NATO's ability to deter bad actors from bad acts, we have each got to do our part. It is time for all of us in NATO to start keeping our promises and investing in our defense.

The American people have sent over $100 billion to fight Putin in Ukraine, and I don't regret a single penny. We kept our word. But, again, friends tell friends the truth: Not all of our allies in NATO have, and it is time they put their money where their mouth is.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1034. I ask that it be reported by number. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Menendez and I each have 3 minutes to discuss this amendment.

Mr. President, as we all know, the International Monetary Fund--or the IMF, as we call it--is an international bank. Most countries belong to it--190, in fact. Virtually every country in the world is a member of the IMF--there are 190 countries--and everybody puts up money. When another country gets in trouble, the IMF helps bail them out.

Now, not every country in the IMF is equal in voting rights. The countries that put up the most money get most of the voting rights and have most of the control. And you will not be surprised to learn that the United States of America puts up over $100 billion, and we have the largest share of voting rights.

Periodically, the IMF issues what are called special drawing rights. The technical definition of a special drawing right is an international reserve asset created by and issued by the IMF. But forget that. Let me tell you what a special drawing right is. A special drawing right is like a dividend. Think of it as a poker chip. So the IMF says: We are going to give dividends or poker chips to every member of the IMF.

Well, what can you do with this poker chip? Well, if you are Iran, for example, you can take this poker chip and go to the IMF and say ``Here is my poker chip, and I want $1.42''--that is the exchange rate--``of U.S. dollars,'' whether Iran needs it or not. Pretty sweet deal.

Iran would never have to pay back that money. The IMF does charge Iran interest on those U.S. dollars. Iran wouldn't have to pay it back, but they have to pay interest. Guess what the interest rate is. It is .05 percent--not 5 percent, .05 percent. Sweet deal for Iran, especially when they don't need the money.

My amendment would simply say that the United States cannot-- Secretary of the Treasury--cannot vote to approve special drawing rights, or these poker chips, for any country that, according to the State Department, sponsors genocide or state-backed terrorism--genocide or state-backed terrorism--unless Congress approves.

I will reserve my time but yield to Senator Menendez, my good friend from New Jersey.

Mr. President, how much additional time do I have?

Mr. President, this bill will not take poker chips--and that is what they are--away from any country unless they are engaging in genocide or State-sponsored terrorism. That is it. The world will not spin off its axis. If you think a country that commits genocide or State-sponsored terrorism should get poker chips, vote against this bill.

Mr. President, as we know, President Biden has been talking the last 30 to 60 days about Bidenomics. I think it would be fair to say that because so many Americans are struggling to support their families, President Biden is struggling to explain what he means by ``Bidenomics.''

I think most fairminded Americans, based on the, what, year and a half and a few months that President Biden has been President, understand what Bidenomics is because they understand, at this juncture, what President Biden believes in, not only what he believes in, what he has done.

Bidenomics, to most fairminded Americans, is bigger government. Bidenomics is higher taxes. Bidenomics is more regulation.

Bidenomics is more spending. Bidenomics is more debt. Bidenomics is also inflation.

Let me say that again. First and foremost, Bidenomics is inflation. President Biden's inflation--history, I believe, will demonstrate this--is a cancer on the American dream. It is a cancer on the American dream.

Since President Biden has been President, electricity is up 24 percent. There is your Bidenomics. Gas, gasoline--I will quote you from Louisiana--is up 65 percent. Eggs are up 39 percent. Potato chips are up 25 percent. Bread is up 26 percent. Coffee costs 30 percent more, thanks to President Biden's inflation and Bidenomics. Rice is up 29 percent. Flour is up 25 percent. Milk is up 18 percent; ice cream, 18 percent; chicken, 23 percent. I could keep going.

Let me give you a few statistics to put those numbers in context. The median household income in my State of Louisiana is $53,571. The median household income of an American family, nationwide, is $70,784. So in Louisiana, the median household income--not individual income, household income--is about $54,000. The median income throughout America is about $71,000.

In my State, Bidenomics and President Biden's inflation is costing my people--the average family in Louisiana--an additional $757 a month-- not a year, a month. That is $9,084 a year.

So imagine, in Louisiana, if you are at the median household income of $54,000 a year--that is you, a spouse, and children--and, all of a sudden, in the past year-and-a-half, under Bidenomics, you have got to come out of pocket an extra $9,000 a year. You are making $54,000 a year to support the family, and now, all of a sudden, you have got to come out--you have to find--an extra $9,000 just to tread water. Where are you going to get that money?

Maybe you saved up a little money from the stimulus checks, but that is probably gone. Maybe you have a savings account that you set aside, but that is probably gone now too. Maybe you have got a couple of credit cards, but you have maxed those out. Maybe you have a dream of sending your children to college and you have a college fund, but you have already had to dip into that. And there is no end in sight.

Now, that is the experience of the people in my State, from Bidenomics, and I think that is the experience across America. That is why I say that inflation--President Biden's inflation--has been a cancer on the American dream. And I can tell you that in Louisiana my people are getting really good at barely getting by, and there is no end in sight.

Now, I am pleased to be able to say that the rate of inflation has been coming down, and I hope it keeps coming down. Our last inflation numbers showed that. You will see them reported in the media. Inflation is now at 3 percent. That is sort of accurate. It is at 3 percent, but the reason it is at 3 percent is primarily because of the fall in the price of gasoline. Gasoline is still high, but the price of oil has come down because our economy and the world economy are so weak. So there is less demand for it.

But more important than overall inflation is what we call core inflation. That is what most economists look at. It would be core inflation because core--C-O-R-E--inflation looks at inflation without looking at energy or food, because energy and food can both be very volatile. Core inflation is at 4.8 percent, and it has been very sticky, still way over the Federal Reserve's targeted 2 percent.

But it has been coming down, and that is good news. But what does that mean? All it means is that the rate of increase in inflation has been slowing.

When you have inflation, let's say at 8 percent, and you get it down to 6 percent, that means that you have reduced the rate of increase of the prices. The economists call that disinflation. That doesn't mean that prices are going down. It just means that prices aren't rising as rapidly.

And if we can get core inflation down to 2 percent, that does not mean these high prices that I just quoted are going to go down. That would be deflation.

I regret to tell you, Mr. President--and I think you know what I am saying is accurate--these high prices are permanent. We are going to be stuck with a 24-percent increase in electricity. Even if we can get inflation down to zero percent, these high prices that have been caused by Bidenomics are permanent.

We are going to be stuck with coffee up 30 percent. I am not going to reread the list. That is why I say that inflation, the major product of Bidenomics, has been a cancer on the American dream.

Now, my people in Louisiana need every dollar they can get right now. The average family making $54,000 a year is now having to find an additional $9,000 a year, and that is not going to change. Their only hope is that it doesn't get worse.

So I want to call the attention of my people to tax refunds. A lot of my people get tax refunds. They get money back. They have money withheld from their paycheck, and, oftentimes, it is too much. And the State of Louisiana and the Federal Government owe them money in the form of a tax refund.

And sometimes my people in Louisiana are busy earning a living. They get up every day. They go to work. They obey the law. They pay their taxes. They try to teach their children morals. They try to do the right thing for their children. They get busy, and, sometimes, people forget to claim their tax refunds.

So I am here today, No. 1, to try to explain Bidenomics and tell the people of Louisiana and the people of America that I am sorry they are having to go through this. But, No. 2, I understand that every dollar counts. And please, please, please, check and see if you are due a tax refund.

For example, now, start with the State. The State of Louisiana is holding almost $12 million--$11,574,249--that is owed in tax refunds to the people of Louisiana. So 15,461 people are owed tax refunds, and they haven't claimed it. The average refund is about $750. You need to claim it, I say to my people. You need to claim it by August 28. If you don't claim it by August 28, you won't lose it. The money will be transferred to the Treasury Department and become part of what is called the Unclaimed Property Program, and then you just have to fill out more paperwork to get your money.

So if you think you have a tax refund due from the State of Louisiana, go get it by August 28. It is worth checking. All you have got to do is go to the department of revenue website: revenue.louisiana.gov--revenue.louisiana.gov.

Now, also, my department of revenue--thank you for doing this--just sent out letters to every one of these 15,461 people to whom the State owes a tax refund. Our department of revenue sent them a letter. Please open that letter and don't throw it away. This includes individuals and women and businessmen. All you have to do is open that letter. There is a voucher in there. You fill it out and send it back into the department of revenue, and you will get your money. So please do that. You earned it.

Now, at the Federal level, it is a little more complicated, to no one's surprise--at the Federal level. I tried to get the information from the IRS about how much is owed to my people in terms of Federal income tax refunds. You won't faint with surprise when I say it is hard to get them on the phone. And when we did get them on the phone, they said: We can't give you that information. If we told you, we would have to kill you.

So I went back and did some research. The most recent numbers I have are from 2019. In 2019, tax refunds in the amount of $22 million were owed to the people in Louisiana. These are Federal income tax refunds. This is 2019 now. I don't know what the current number is because the IRS won't tell me. But based on 2019 numbers, it is anywhere from $22 to $25 million, and based on 2019 numbers, about 22,000 Louisianians are owed Federal income tax refunds on top of the State income tax refunds.

And I want to encourage them to check to see if they have a Federal income tax refund. Here is what you need to do. You can call them if you like, but lots of luck. Go to www.irs.gov/refunds_www.irs.gov/ refunds_and you can check to see if the IRS owes you a tax refund.

You are going to need your Social Security number, of course, or your taxpayer ID number. You are going to need your filing status. They want you

to tell them the exact amount of your refund. They have all that information, but they want you to tell it to them. Just don't argue with them. Just go ahead and do it, based off your tax return.

And you can make a claim there, online, and give them a reasonable amount of time, and you can get a check from the Federal Government as well.

I used to be the tax collector in Louisiana, and I can tell you that, for a variety of reasons, a lot of people--not just Louisianians but all across America--forget to claim their State income tax refund and/ or their Federal income tax refund. So I hope they will take advantage of this.

I am sorry. I just want to say to them that I am sorry that the Federal Government has let them down. I am embarrassed about Bidenomics. I am sorry about this inflation. It is a cancer on the American dream. I am afraid it is going to be with us awhile. I hope I am wrong. But if we succeed in getting that rate of inflation down to 2 percent, that doesn't mean prices are going to go down. I wish I could sit here and tell you that. These higher prices are coming. What we are trying to do is just stop the increase and stop the crisis from going up so fast. So I hope you will take advantage of this information, not just in Louisiana but all across America, and go claim your tax refunds if you are owed.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, some time ago, Senator Sinema and I introduced the Independent and Objective Oversight of Ukrainian Assistance Act to create a special inspector general to follow the money with respect to Ukraine. Senators Hawley, Paul, Risch, and Wicker have been important voices in this. Indeed, they have had their own bills. We have gotten together and worked out a compromise.

Our bill would create a lead inspector general among the inspectors general right now doing the auditing, which are the Department of Defense, the State Department, and USAID. This lead inspector general would be our contact. We could go to that inspector general and get answers. By law, the inspector general would have to respond in 15 days.

We will not need Senate confirmation because I expect the President to appoint as the lead one of the inspectors general who are currently involved.

I urge favorable passage and yield to Senator Wicker or Senator Risch.

Mr. President, do the proponents have any additional time?

Go ahead. Save some more for me.

I thank the Senator. You are a fine American.

Mr. President, the American people have sent over $100 billion to help our friends in Ukraine, and most Members of this body have supported it. But this money didn't fall from Heaven; it came out of people's pockets.

How can we possibly look the American people in the eye and say that we don't want to ensure to them that this money will not be stolen? That is all this bill does. It lets the President appoint a lead inspector general to answer to the U.S. Congress so we can look the American people in the eye and say: Your money was not stolen.

I can't imagine that we would not pass this bill. How can you go home and explain this to your people? You can't.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to use several props during my remarks.

Silas James Hogg. I want to introduce Silas to you, Madam President, to the American people and to my colleagues in the Senate.

I would love to be able to put his photograph up here because he is a fine-looking young man, but for privacy reasons, I have decided not to.

Silas and I go to the same church, so, in some ways, we have kind of grown up together. His mom and dad are Jeff and Shannon Hogg, two wonderful people, two great parents. Silas has a sister named Ellie Grace. Ellie Grace is splendid in her own right. Maybe someday I will come down to talk about Ellie Grace, but today I want to talk about Silas.

Silas is a rising eighth grader. He just finished the seventh grade. Next year, he is going to attend the Brighthouse Learning Academy.

In his spare time, he likes to play with his mom and dad and sister. He is very close to all three of them. He has a motorized bike that he likes to ride around his neighborhood. He likes to play LEGOs. He likes to play video games. He has three pets: two dogs and one cat. Toby and Milo are the pups. Kahn is the cat. Kahn probably rules the roost.

Silas, as I alluded to, is--I hope you are listening, Silas. Silas is whip-smart. He is kind. He is special in every way, and he is what cool looks like.

Why am I talking about Silas? I just want to thank him. Over the break, Silas gave me a present. It was heartfelt from him, I know, and it was heartfelt when I received it.

First, he gave it to me in this envelope. It was very safe. He stapled it together. He gave me a pen. Silas knows I am always losing pens. And he gave me--we are still talking about what it is, but it is a glass stone or crystal. We are in the process of researching it.

But, Silas, I can't tell you how much this meant to me and does mean to me, my new pen--we are not going to lose it; I am going to put it right here--and my new lucky stone.

You are special, Silas. You are special in many, many ways. And I want you to know, Silas, that I am bringing back home to you--in thanks for your gift, I am going to give you a gift. I am going to give you a gift of the seal of the U.S. Senate.

Silas is one of Louisiana's best and brightest. He has challenges-- gosh, we all do--but he rises above them every day.

Thank you, Silas.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to use a prop during my remarks.

Mr. President, I want to spend a few minutes talking about Senator Marshall's and my legislation to overturn President Biden's squid-brained idea with respect to pistol braces.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Mr. President, as you well know, gives private citizens the right to possess a firearm, including a pistol, and to use it lawfully. That is not a right of government; that is a right that each of us has as Americans.

Justice Scalia said it pretty well in DC v. Heller:

The American people have considered the handgun to be the

quintessential self-defense weapon.

So many people who are opposed to the Second Amendment--they say they are not opposed to the Second Amendment. They say they just want to regulate guns. They don't. They want to abolish guns. And many of them wouldn't know a gun from a J.Crew catalogue. This is a handgun. This is what we are talking about.

Our Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We know that. It is subject to reasonable--reasonable--restriction by government, consistent with the Constitution and the country's ``historical tradition of firearm regulation.'' Those aren't my words; those are the Supreme Court's words. I am quoting New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen by the U.S. Supreme Court. For example, in many States, you can't own a bazooka. That is a reasonable restriction. Your right to own a gun can also be restricted if you suffer from mental illness. That is what we have concluded as a society as a reasonable restriction.

The issue today is very simple. It is whether President Biden's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms' new rule, in effect, banning or, at a minimum, severely restricting pistol braces is a reasonable restriction under the Constitution. That is what we are discussing today.

Trigger warning: This is a pistol brace. I know it is scary. This is a pistol brace. It fits on your forearm like this. Here it is right here. To the pistol brace is added another piece that grips the handgun. That is what we are talking about here.

A pistol brace is also known--this scary piece of equipment here is also known as a stabilizing brace or an arm brace. It is a simple device. It is mounted to the rear of the pistol. It is designed to anchor the pistol to the shooter's arm, right here--it goes on the forearm--so the shooter can shoot the pistol with one hand.

Now, why is that important? Because some Americans don't have two hands or the use of two hands or two arms. Pistol braces were invented to help handicapped people, particularly handicapped veterans, who don't have the use of both of their arms.

You don't have to be a handicapped person to use a pistol brace. Some studies have shown that there are as many as 40 million pistol braces in the United States that President Biden wants to outlaw--not 4 million, 40 million--and most of them--I would say virtually all of them--are owned by law-abiding citizens.

Now, this pistol brace, other than stabilizing the pistol, it doesn't change the pistol in any way. The pistol brace doesn't change the caliber of the pistol. It doesn't make it more powerful. The pistol brace doesn't change the number of rounds that the pistol can hold. The pistol brace doesn't make the pistol an automatic pistol. Automatic weapons are forbidden in the United States. And the pistol brace doesn't make the pistol fire any faster. The pistol brace also does not help the shooter load the pistol more quickly.

Except for stabilizing the pistol, it doesn't change the pistol in any way. It just makes it easier to hold, which is important particularly if you are handicapped.

As one of my colleagues alluded to, pistol braces were invented in 2012. They have been legal since. As I said, millions of Americans own them. Millions of Americans use them, especially handicapped Americans.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms has never had a problem with pistol braces--none, zero, zilch, nada--until President Biden became President. Now, President Biden and his ATF have promulgated a rule. It says attaching a pistol brace to a pistol somehow magically stops the pistol from being a pistol and turns it into a short-barreled rifle.

The ATF has defended its proposed new rule, as has President Biden, by pointing to two mass shootings that were committed by individuals who used pistols with pistol braces.

Now, why does it matter? Why is the ATF trying to say a pistol is no longer a pistol if you use a pistol brace; it is a short-barreled rifle? I will tell you why. You don't have to be a Latin scholar to figure it out because short-barreled rifles, once again, which the ATF says pistol braces turn pistols into, are heavily restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. That is why they want to turn a pistol into a short-barreled rifle by using a pistol brace.

Under these two Federal statutes, if the ATF can succeed, the ATF can require the owner of the pistol with the pistol brace to register it within 120 days with the ATF. They want to start a gun registry for law-abiding Americans. Hello. They want to start a gun registry. If the ATF pulls this off, this is what they can do.

This is what you have to do if you own a pistol brace and you use it with your handgun, handicapped or otherwise. You have got to register it within 120 days with the ATF. You have got to destroy the pistol brace, or you have got to dismantle the pistol brace, or you have got to surrender your pistol to the ATF, or you have to destroy your pistol.

And violations: If you don't do what the ATF says, violations of these two Federal statutes are punishable by 5 to 10 years in prison and fines up to $250,000.

Stupidity should hurt more. Unless you self-identify as an idiot, you can see what is going on here. The American people may be poorer under President Biden, but they are not stupid.

The ATF is trying to keep Americans from owning pistols and/or they are trying to keep Americans from owning pistol braces and/or they are trying to use this rule to start an extensive national gun registry. And the ATF rule is just a backdoor way to subject pistols to more smothering regulations.

I swear to God and all the angels, Americans get so much government, they choke on it. They choke on it. Neither the National Firearms Act of 1934 nor the Gun Control Act of 1968 mention pistol braces, nor does the statute's legislative history.

Under recent unambiguous decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court in West Virginia v. EPA, in Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Services, and in King v. Burwell--all Supreme Court precedent--a regulatory Agency like the ATF does not have the power under our Constitution to decide major questions like banning pistol braces unless Congress says it is OK, through the text of the statute that the Agency is relying on. The statute itself clearly and unambiguously has to give the ATF the authority to ban pistol braces, and it does not.

The ATF rule is unconstitutional. It is also unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which was handed down a couple of years ago, because banning pistol braces is not part of our country's ``historical tradition of firearm regulation.''

The ATF rule also violates, in my judgment, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. And finally, the ATF rule and President Biden's rule are just--the rule is just plain bottom-of-the-barrel moronic.

Attaching a pistol brace to a pistol, which doesn't change the pistol in any fundamental way except stabilizing it, does not stop the pistol from being a pistol. It doesn't. And it sure doesn't turn it into a short-barreled rifle. Pistols are pistols. Rifles are rifles. Duh. All the pistol brace does is allow an American, especially a handicapped American, to safely grip a pistol and control it in a safe manner. That is all it does. Like I said, stupid should hurt more.

This ATF rule is why so many Americans wonder how so many governmental officials in Washington, DC, made it through the birth canal.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, also with me today is Mr. James Shea, who is one of my colleagues.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following associates who are working with me this summer in my office be granted floor privileges until June 16, 2023: Ms. Lauren Gachassin and Ms. Jolea Simpson.