Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consideration of S. Res. 712, submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader and the senior Senator from Alaska be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions on Friday, November 30, 2018.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 3 o'clock p.m., Monday, December 3; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; further, that the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of Executive Calendar No. 1153 and that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture vote on that nomination occur at 5:30 p.m.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, I want to talk for just a few minutes about our efforts to get control of health insurance costs in America. With me today is one of the colleagues from my office, Ms. Katie Dwyer.

The Affordable Care Act has not worked for the American people. I wish it had. I am disappointed that it hasn't. We were promised upon the passage of the Affordable Care Act that our lives would be better. Our lives are worse. We were promised upon passage of the Affordable Care Act that health insurance would be cheaper and more accessible. It has been neither.

As you know, the Senate has tried to come up with a health insurance reform effort to replace the Affordable Care Act. We have not been able to do that, but we didn't quit, as you well know. We have started, through a number of small but meaningful measures, along with the Trump administration, to lower the cost of health insurance for the American people, and we have made substantial progress. It has been lost in the noise, but it is real, nonetheless. I want to briefly talk about two such efforts.

First, association health plans. As you know, one option that has often been missing from our array of health insurance choices is the ability to get together as a group of people, sometimes across State lines, and buy health insurance. Let me explain what I mean by that. Let's suppose you have a chamber of commerce, as many cities and towns do. Those chambers of commerce in my State would join with chambers of commerce in Mississippi, which would join with chambers of commerce in Arkansas, and they would pool all of their members and say to a health insurance provider: Here are all these people who want to buy health insurance. Give us the best deal you can.

Through the economy of scale, we could lower the cost of health insurance. It makes sense, but forever and a day, it hasn't been legal in the United States of America. It now is. In 2017, President Trump issued an Executive order directing Federal agencies to draft regulations to allow the American people to enjoy the fruits of association health plans. In January of this year, the Department of Labor proposed a rule expanding the scope of groups and individuals eligible for banding together as associations and purchasing coverage through an association health plan. The rule was finalized on June 21 of this year, and it became effective on August 20, 2018.

I am not suggesting that association health plans are going to solve all the problems of access to insurance and cost of health insurance in America, but they will help, and they will help because the principle underlying association health plans is that they allow the free market to work.

If you are a member of a Rotary Club, and you want to join with Rotary Clubs in other States or other parts of your State, pool a large group of people together, and go to a health insurance provider and say ``I have a lot of potential customers here, and I want to buy major medical insurance. What kind of deal will you give me?'' that would be legal in our country.

The second thing we have done, Mr. President, as you are well aware-- I consider you an expert in healthcare and in healthcare insurance--has to do with what we call short-term, limited-duration health plans.

What is a short-term, limited-duration health plan? Well, let's suppose that I leave my job and I have employer-provided insurance and I am not sure what I am going to do next. I have some ideas and I have some prospects, but it will probably be 6 months before I will take a new job with a new company that will provide health insurance. There will be a 6-month gap where I and my family will not have health insurance. That is the purpose of short-term, limited-duration health plans.

There are plans offered throughout our country where, if I am in between

jobs, for example, and I don't have insurance and I don't want to pursue my prior health insurance through COBRA, I can go buy one of these short-term, limited-duration health plans. It is sort of gap coverage, if you will.

Short-term, limited-duration health plans have been around for a long time. The problem is, for all practical purposes, the Affordable Care Act made them illegal. That is a bit of an overstatement. You could still purchase a short-term, limited-duration health plan but for a very short period of time, so they were rendered ineffective.

Under changes made, these plans will allow families and individuals to purchase these short-term plans for up to 12 months and in some cases, for up to 36 months. That is the result of a new rule promulgated by the Trump administration which reverses the Obama-era policies that limited these short-term plans to only 3 months with no option to renew.

Why are short-term, limited-duration health plans important? Why are they helping to contribute to our efforts to lower the cost of health insurance? Here is the problem we are trying to solve, as you well know.

These are the increases in premiums--the cost you pay--to purchase health insurance through the Affordable Care Act.

In Texas, from 2017 to 2018, the price of the silver plan--to buy a silver plan through the Affordable Care Act--went up 41.3 percent; in my State of Louisiana, 12.9 percent; in Oregon, 31.9 percent; in Wisconsin, 43.5 percent; in Pennsylvania, 30.6 percent. I could go on and on. That is why the Affordable Care Act hasn't worked. No one can afford it. I wish it had worked. It gives me no pleasure to say that. But we were told health insurance premiums would go down. They have gone up.

By making these short-term, limited-duration health plans available for a longer period of time, we are giving people the flexibility to extend them. The Trump administration, in my judgement, is making sure American families have access to a reliable, affordable health care option.

We had a vote yesterday. Some of my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle decided they wanted to end short-term, limited-duration health plans. They promulgated a proposal through the Congressional Review Act to end them. Fortunately, we defeated that effort.

What has been the effect in terms of price and availability? Well, short-term, limited-duration health plans, in many cases, are 50 to 80 percent cheaper than plans purchased under the Affordable Care Act.

You say: Why is that?

Well, there is no free lunch, and you are not going to get one now. If you purchase a short-term, limited duration health plan, it oftentimes does not have the same coverage a company is required to offer if it is a health insurance company offering health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. You don't get the same coverage. That doesn't mean you get no coverage. That doesn't mean the short-term, limited-duration plan is junk insurance, because it is not. It is considered major medical insurance, and issues like lifetime limits, annual limits, coverage of preexisting conditions--there are a variety of plans out there offered. If you want to purchase a plan that is still cheaper than you could buy under ObamaCare that covers preexisting conditions, you can.

This idea that these short-term, limited-duration health plans are not insurance at all, or so-called junk insurance, is simply a bunch of nonsense. I will give an example. In the last quarter of 2016, a short- term, limited-duration health plan cost an individual about $124 a month. That is a lot of money for a lot of Americans, but it is much better when you compare it to an unsubsidized ObamaCare plan that costs $393 a month. You could save 70 percent by buying a short-term, limited-duration health plan.

Again, the problem was that under ObamaCare, you could only buy one of these short-term plans for 3 months. Now you can buy them for much longer.

The self-styled betters of Washington, DC, the cultured, cosmopolitan crowd up here who think they know better than everybody else in America, who think they are smarter than all Americans, would do away with short-term, limited-duration health plans if they could because they think the American people are not smart enough to understand what they are buying. We are not going to give them the choice. We are smarter than they are. They need to look to us here in Washington, DC, to run their lives.

We saw that effort yesterday on the floor of the Senate. Fortunately, we defeated it. The American people are plenty smart. They may not have time to read Aristotle every day because they are too busy earning a living, but they get it. They watched their health insurance premiums rise through the roof as a result of the Affordable Care Act, and many of them have sought out this alternative, a short-term, limited- duration plan, and said: Hey, we know it doesn't cover as much as some policies, but it is a heck of a lot cheaper, and we would like to buy it and try it for a while.

As Americans, they are entitled to do that. I am pleased that we could reserve the option for them. It was a win for American families, in my book.

We are not giving up on replacing the Affordable Care Act. Again, it gives me no joy to say we have to replace it, but it just hasn't worked. Any fairminded person who is at all objective would have to look at a plan that promised us cheaper policies and more accessibility and ended up with more expensive policies and less accessibility and say: It just didn't work. We have to replace it, and we are going to keep working on it.

In the meantime, I wanted to point out to my colleagues that we continue to chip away at the rising cost of health insurance in America.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to welcome home and congratulate a young man from my home State of Louisiana, Mr. Mason Williams Andrews. Mr. Andrews just achieved his mission of setting a new world record as the youngest solo pilot to complete a circumnavigation of the globe, as Mason is about 4 months younger than the current record holder.

Mr. Andrews set out on July 22, on ``Mason's MedCamps Mission'' from Monroe, LA, in an effort to achieve the new world record, as well as raise funding and awareness about MedCamps, which is a summer camp for children with disabilities and illnesses. Today Mr. Andrews has achieved both of his goals and will make his official and final landing in Monroe tomorrow morning, Saturday, October 6.

It is my honor to recognize Mr. Andrews on a job well done. We are grateful for his safe return and applaud his courageous efforts to help a worthy cause by raising over $25,000 for MedCamps throughout his 2 month journey.

On behalf of the people of Louisiana, I would like to express my congratulations to Mason and thank him for his efforts in helping MedCamps continue their mission of serving children.

Mr. President, I want to take a moment to honor the more than 125,000 hard-working men and women who work in America's rice industry. September is National Rice Month, and it is also the start of our domestic rice harvest. This year, roughly 23 billion pounds of rice will be grown on 3 million acres of farmland. 85 percent of the rice eaten in America comes from just 6 States: Arkansas, California, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas, and my home State of Louisiana.

Rice isn't just delicious in jambalaya or seafood gumbo; it is an indispensable part of Louisiana's economy. The 4,500 members of the Louisiana rice industry generate more than $700 million in economic benefits for the State. These small businesses not only put food on the table of America's families, but they also employ tens of thousands of workers. Altogether, America's rice crop has a $34 billion impact on our national economy.

Rice farmers are also careful stewards of our Nation's precious natural resources. Over the past 20 years, rice farmers have been able to increase their yields by as much as 50 percent. They have achieved this while using less land, less water, and less energy. American rice shines as a bright example of sustainable agriculture and the benefits of effective agricultural research.

America was born on a farm. The importance of farming to the U.S. economy cannot be overstated; agriculture provides jobs for nearly 1 in 7 Americans. While rice is a valuable export, I am pleased to say that nearly all of our domestic rice crop is consumed right here. For these and many other reasons, I am proud to celebrate National Rice Month and the world's most popular grain. I also want to extend my heartfelt support and gratitude to all American rice farmers, particularly those in the great State of Louisiana. Keep up the good work.

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

Mr. President, I begin my remarks today by offering my heartfelt sympathy to those in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia who were battered by Hurricane Florence over the past several weeks and who are still feeling the aftermath of that storm. Unfortunately, people in Louisiana know more than a little bit about the damage to life and property that these natural disasters can do.

The road to recovery may be long, but we have your back. That is the message that I want to give to our fellow Americans who were in the path of Hurricane Florence. Don't give up. You are going to want to. Don't. Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting back up.

Today, I wish to talk a little bit about the National Flood Insurance Program. Weathering a hurricane is difficult enough without the added burden of having to do it without insurance. Our National Flood Insurance Program isn't doing its job if it is so expensive that people can't afford to buy it.

Unfortunately, that is precisely the case for many of our people in North and South Carolina. In spite of a robust economy--4 million new jobs in 20 months and 4.1 percent in gross domestic product growth--and in spite of a booming population in our country, fewer people in the Carolinas can afford to insure their property today than in the year 2013. We should be ashamed of that.

Experts estimate that fewer than 10 percent of the households affected by Hurricane Florence have flood insurance at all. So 90 percent do not. Making matters worse, in North Carolina today there are 3.6 percent fewer NFIP policies in place than there were in 2013. Over that same period of time, North Carolina's population has increased by 620,000 people.

South Carolina tells a similar story. Today, there are 1.2 percent fewer policies than in 2013, despite South Carolina having 350,000 more people. This is the exact same story--the exact same story--that we saw in Texas last year, where 80 percent of homeowners in the eight hardest hit counties had absolutely no flood insurance. That is four out of every five people.

Why don't people have flood insurance? There are a variety of reasons, but because the costs are out of control and middle-class families have little choice but to just roll the dice is the main reason. Why is that? Because Congress keeps playing games, and people don't have faith that the NFIP will be around to pay off. It is also because some people want to get a sound bite more than they want to help ordinary Americans protect one of their most valuable possessions--and, in most cases, their most valuable possession--their home. If those people want to reform the program because they want to save the government money, which is a laudable goal--and some do--they are going about it the wrong way.

The reality is that the National Flood Insurance Program is the only place--the only place--where people can turn to insure their home and their belongings.

Now, 98.5 percent of all NFIP policies are in counties or parishes with a median household income below $100,000. So this argument we often hear that the National Flood Insurance Program is just a subsidy for wealthy people and their beach homes is nonsense. It is nonsense on a stick. And 62 percent of all of the people enrolled in the NFIP program are in counties or parishes with a median household income below the national average of $53,889. Last year, many folks saw the premiums for their homes and businesses increase between 8 and 25 percent.

Floods are the most common and, unfortunately, the most costly natural disaster. If your home takes on water, your homeowner's insurance is not going to help you. Let me say that again. If your home floods and you have homeowner's insurance, you will not be covered. Homeowner's insurance does not cover the cost of a flood. If you don't have insurance, FEMA's disaster dollars aren't going to foot the bill for a full recovery. They aren't.

Even if you are eligible for Federal disaster assistance--for example, a

loan or a grant--it will be years before you will see those funds. What are flood victims supposed to do in the meantime? They can't just simply sit on an empty lot and wait. Life goes on.

Hurricane Florence is just one in a long line of storms that have devastated Americans families. I am not just talking about massive hurricanes such as Katrina, Rita, and Sandy. Unnamed floods in the spring and summer of 2016 ravaged 56 of the 64 parishes or counties in my State. In parts of my State in 2016, we had folks who endured 20 inches of rain in 2 days. I don't care if you live on Pikes Peak. If you get 20 inches of rain in 2 days, you are going to flood, even if you are not near a body of water. That is just a fact.

In the wake of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria last year, I thought my colleagues might have seen the light and might have come to the table to discuss a long-term sustainable and reasonable bill to reform the NFIP, but, unfortunately, that couldn't be further from reality.

Congress has not only refused to debate comprehensive National Flood Insurance Program reform, but the program nearly lapsed. Congress has had well over a year to lay out a plan. Yet it still refuses to do so because one or two Members want to hold up progress. Unfortunately, it is ordinary people like the good people of North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Louisiana, and Texas who are feeling the pain of those politics.

Recovering from a natural disaster is more than just putting up drywall. It is about communities coming back safer, stronger, and better prepared. The NFIP is an indispensable part of that effort to rebuild, but a flood insurance program isn't useful if it is too complicated to understand or if it allows bad actors to take from hard- working families.

We need rules for the flood insurance program that make sense. We need government websites that a normal person can navigate. We need quicker decisions by bureaucrats, and a faster process to get disaster dollars to the people who need them. Most importantly, though, people need to be able to afford the flood insurance.

I understand the National Flood Insurance Program is running a deficit. As you can see, we have had an extraordinary number of storms, and I understand that it needs to be put back into sound, fiscal shape. But raising the price of the product so high so that people can't afford the insurance is not going to achieve that. It is going to undermine the entire purpose of the flood insurance program.

I suggest that what we have to do is to strike a balance between fiscal stability and longevity of the program and affordability for the people who are supposed to be served by it. We have no choice but to get the program fiscally stable, but also we have no choice but to get premiums under control, and reform is the only path forward. The status quo is not working.

When Congress established the NFIP, we made a promise. We promised 5 million Americans--that is how many policyholders we have--including half a million people in my State and 350,000 people in North and South Carolina, that we would be there to help should disaster strike, and it is high time that the Congress show people that we meant it.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, my amendment No. 3703 is pretty straightforward. It would increase funding for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline by an additional $2.8 million.

It is a bipartisan amendment. It is fully offset. It is not adding money to the budget. I think it will do a great deal to make sure that anyone battling depression knows there is someone out there who is listening. Our National Suicide Prevention Hotline, as you know, supports the national network of local crisis centers. To date, they have answered more than 10 million calls from people in distress, and they estimate that over the next 4 years, they will take 12 million calls. We underfund them. It is embarrassing how much we underfund them.

Again, this will add an additional $2.8 million to their budget, and it is fully offset.

Mr. 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 would like to talk for a few minutes about our farm bill. As you know, our farm bill is the primary agricultural and food policy tool of the United States. We pass it every 5 years. We just passed it this year. The bill is going to conference. As you know, the Senate passed its own farm bill and the House passed its farm bill, so we will go to conference and try to work it out. The bill was a 5-year bill, but it spends $860 billion in taxpayer money. Let me say that figure again--$860 billion in taxpayer money.

We throw a billion around these days in Washington as if it were a nickel. A billion is a lot. If I started counting to a billion right now and counted one numeral a second, I would finish in 2050. I probably wouldn't finish; I would probably die first. That is how much a billion is. This bill is about $860 billion. Seventy-five percent of it deals with our food stamp program.

In the House version of the farm bill, there is a work requirement for food stamps, and this is what it says: The American taxpayer will happily give you his or her hard-earned money to help you get back on your feet. We don't want you to be hungry. But if you are between the ages of 18 and 59, the House bill says, and you are not disabled and you don't have a child under 6, then in return for those food stamps, we are going to require you to get a job. You don't have to work a full week; you just have to work 20 hours a week. And if you don't want to work, you can go to job training for 20 hours a week.

That is what the House bill says. The Senate bill is silent on that-- crickets. It doesn't even address it.

I am speaking today to try to encourage our friends in the House to stand firm and insist that their work requirement for food stamps remain in the bill. I would like to spend a few minutes to explain why.

I get a little tired of politicians and others saying: Oh, the American people--they are stingy. They don't help their neighbor.

That is not true. The American people are the most generous people in the world. They are the most generous people in the history of the world. Think about it. First, we spend about $1 trillion a year--$1 trillion a year--in State and local programs that are funded by people's money. The money to fund those programs didn't fall from Heaven. We thank Heaven for it, but it came out of people's pockets, and we spend $1 trillion a year--State and local tax money--helping our neighbors who are less fortunate than we are.

In our country--and I am very proud of this--if you are homeless, we will house you; if you are too poor to be sick, we will pay for your doctor; and if you are hungry, we will feed you. That separates this country from just about every other country in the world, and it is one of the reasons that so many people across the world want to come to America--because our people are so generous. I mean, when is the last time you heard of somebody trying to sneak into Russia? When is the last time you heard of somebody trying to sneak into North Korea? When is the last time you heard of somebody trying to sneak into China? I mean, we should be complimented, and it is because of our giving spirit. But it doesn't do any good, in my judgment, to be generous with people who need our help without also helping them get out of the circumstances for which we need to be generous.

Let me put it another way. By suggesting we need a work requirement for food stamps, I am not trying to take away food stamps from people in need. I do not want to take away food stamps from people in need, but I do want fewer people to need food stamps. The best way we can do that for those who are able to work is to help them get a job.

The Brookings Institution, as the Presiding Officer knows, is hardly a bastion of liberalism. They recently did a study. The Brookings Institute said: If you do these four things, you have only a 2-percent chance of living in poverty in America. This is Brookings, now.

The Brookings Institution says that if you do these four things you have only a 2-percent chance of living in poverty: No. 1, get a job-- any job--even if it is minimum wage; No. 2, don't get married until you are 21; No. 3, don't have a child before you get married.

I said four, but I will say that, even if you do these three things-- get any job, don't get married before you are 21, and don't have a child before you get married--you only have a 2-percent chance in this country of living in poverty. Obviously, a job is a critical part of that.

This is what the House bill does. I hope we in the Senate will join with

our colleagues in the House and keep this provision in the bill. If you are between the ages of 18 and 59, you are not disabled, and you don't have a child under 6, then we will gladly give you food stamps, but in return we are going to ask you to work 20 hours a week, and we will help you get a job.

If you look at the numbers, right now we have about 21 million people on food stamps who are able-bodied. Let me tell you how I define that universe. There are 21 million people, 18 to 64 years old. So the numbers are slightly different from the House. They are not disabled. Those 21 million able-bodied Americans receive about $34 billion a year in food stamps.

Of those 21 million able-bodied Americans who do not work and who are not disabled, 40 percent of them don't have children, 63 percent of them are White, and 50 percent of them are under 35.

The House bill is even more generous, if you will. It is just 18 to 59, no child under 6, and you can't be disabled. In return for the food stamps, we would ask you to get a job.

I want to repeat what I started with. The purpose of this bill is not just my idea. The House provision is not meant to punish anybody. I don't want to take food stamps away from people who are in need, but I want fewer people who need food stamps. If people don't need food stamps, that will free it up for other people who need food stamps, and it might free up a nickel or two for other things like kids, roads, and cops.

The Senate, in its wisdom, decided not to put in a work requirement. Some of my colleagues say: We already have a work requirement for food stamps. No, we don't. No, we don't. It is optional for the Governors.

Guess what my Governor did. He implemented a food stamp work requirement without work. I mean, it looks beautiful on paper. Except, when you actually read the thing, it is a work requirement without work.

The House bill is different. It is getting serious about this problem.

I hope our conferees will open their minds and open their hearts and open their ears and listen to our House colleagues, and I hope our House colleagues will stand firm.

Thank you, Mr. President.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, nobody-- nobody in this Chamber has more respect for the junior Senator from Utah than I do. He is whip-smart, he is honest, he is a good guy, and we almost always vote together. I have some problems I would like to point out to the Chamber with respect to the Senator's request for unanimous consent.

No. 1, it is a fact that 98.5 percent of all of the homes insured by the National Flood Insurance Program are not owned by a bunch of rich people; 98.5 percent of those homes are located in counties with a median household income below $100,000; and 62 percent of those homes are located in counties with a median household income below $54,000, which is the national average. So I would respectfully disagree that the purpose and the effect of the NFIP are to help people with their expensive beach homes.

No. 2, if we adopt the motion by my distinguished colleague, the NFIP is dead on Tuesday. Let me say that again. If we do what the distinguished Senator would like us to do, on Tuesday, the 31st, the NFIP expires. The reason is that, even if I agreed with what my colleague wanted to do, we do not have time to pass this bill, get it to the House, and get it to the President in time to keep the program from expiring on July 31--and, by the way, the House has recessed.

No. 3, I agree with my colleague that this program needs to be reformed, and we all, including my distinguished colleague, have been working toward that end. We are not there yet, but we are working hard toward that end.

I slightly disagree with the proposition that we reformed the program in 2010. I think the last time we really, truly reformed the National Flood Insurance Program was never, and it is about time that we do it now.

The final point I would like to make is that the amendment my colleague is asking this house to adopt today is not just about vacation homes costing $2.5 million. I have looked at the bill, and by my reading--and the reading of people a lot smarter than I--this bill would apply to any structure, period, that costs more than $2.5 million. That structure would not be eligible to participate in the NFIP. It would prohibit assisted living centers, it would prohibit dormitories, it would prohibit hotels, it would prohibit apartment buildings from insurance coverage under the National Flood Insurance Program. If you can't get it from the private sector--and, in many cases, you will not be able to; that is why we have the NFIP--you are on your own. It would mean we couldn't have any more low-income housing. Low-income housing projects are required to have flood insurance from HUD. We all know that. They would be barred from insurance coverage under this amendment.

Residents of Louisiana, Texas, Florida, and Puerto Rico also know that if one of their communities is not participating in the NFIP, then Federal assistance can't be used in any of those areas.

Finally, this amendment would jeopardize the ability of communities to receive community development block grants for disaster recovery.

Let me say again, the junior Senator from Utah is absolutely correct: We need to reform this program. But we need to keep it alive. It is not going to do anybody any good to let this program expire on Tuesday and scare 5 million-plus Americans half to death. We don't have to do that.

There is an instrument coming to us from the House. It extends this program by 4 months. It passed the House overwhelmingly. The House vote was 366 to 52. I am strongly encouraging the majority leader to bring this extension. All it does is maintain status quo for 4 months to bring this extension to the floor. Let's pass it, and let's keep this program alive.

With all the due respect I can muster, I think the purpose of this amendment is to cause the NFIP to expire, and I just can't live with that. I couldn't sleep tonight if I did. For that reason, I object.

Mr. President, with respect, I reassert my objection.

Mr. President, I am almost embarrassed to talk about what I am going to have to talk about today. Once again, in the U.S. Congress, we find ourselves only days away from causing a lapse in the National Flood Insurance Program.

The majority of Members of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives understand the importance of extending this program but sadly some don't. You can lead some people to water, but you can't make them think.

Without congressional action, ordinary Americans--the people who get up every day, go to work, obey the law, pay their taxes, and try to do the right things by their kids--are going to suffer. These folks work pretty hard to earn money to cover their mortgages, to pay their insurance premiums, to put food on the table, and to hopefully have a little extra when all is said and done.

The U.S. Government made a promise to these people, these taxpaying Americans, that if they pay their flood insurance premiums, we will have their backs when they have a flood. We are about to tell them we lied. When you lie to Congress, it is a felony. When Congress lies to you, it is just politics, and that is not right.

Unless we do something, the National Flood Insurance Program, the NFIP, is going to expire on July 31. Now, unless you are a rock--only dumber--that is in 8 days, including today.

Every once in a while, Congress seems to just decide that keeping our promise to the American taxpayer isn't worth the effort. What planet did we parachute in from that we can't even maintain the status quo on something that affects the lives of millions of people and helps more than 22,000 communities across this great country?

I am standing here today because the reauthorization of the NFIP has never been more urgent. Let me say it again. We have 8 days until disaster. If the NFIP is allowed to expire on July 31, Congress is going to be sending a clear message to the 5 million hard-working Americans who count on this program, and that message is three words: We don't care. We don't care. The unfortunate thing is, I think some-- it is a small minority, but some don't.

Last September, when Texas and parts of Louisiana were still reeling from Hurricane Harvey, one Member of the U.S. Congress actually said: ``The federal government is encouraging and subsidizing people to live in harm's way . . . at some point, God is telling you to move.''

Give me a break. Are you kidding me?

The fact is, 50 percent of our country's population and 50 percent of our country's jobs are along our coasts and waterways. Do you really think they ought to just move? Living near water is an economic necessity. People have been doing it since the beginning of time. It is as true for us now as it was in Biblical times that our economies and our livelihoods are tied to water.

Let's take the Mississippi River that runs through my State. Each year, it sustains more than 1.3 million jobs and generates more than $405 billion in revenue. How many jobs are tied to the 12,000 miles of U.S. coastline? What do you think would be the economic impact if everyone who lived near one of the 3.5 million miles of rivers in this great country just picked up and moved tomorrow--as if they could afford to do so. Give me a break. I hope we never have to find out what would happen, but one thing is certain, nobody is going to move before July 31, when the NFIP expires, just because some Members of Congress erroneously think they ought to.

I want to make two other points. First, if Congress allows the NFIP to expire, it is going to stall thousands and thousands and thousands of home closings. That is right. Because the law requires it, many lenders require homeowners to carry flood insurance. If there is no NFIP, then there is no flood insurance. If there is no flood insurance, then there is no home sale.

The last time Congress chose to do nothing and let the National Flood Insurance Program expire, the NFIP lapsed for a total of 53 days. That was in 2010. Over those 2 months, each and every day, 1,400 home sales were canceled. That is every day. That is not total. That is every day. Think about how that is going to impact our economy. Isn't that special?

Just when we finally get the U.S. economy moving again, we are going to step on it by letting the National Flood Insurance Program expire. No wonder many Americans say--and I hear it all the time--yes, there are some good Members of Congress. We just can't figure out what they are good for.

I am also tired of hearing that the NFIP is being abused by rich people for their beach homes. I hear it all the time. That is a bunch of bovine waste. As a matter of fact, 98.5 percent--almost 99 percent-- of all NFIP policies are in counties with a median household income of less than $100,000, and 62

percent are in counties with a median household income below the national average of $54,000.

You don't have to live near a body of water. If you get 22 inches of rain in 2 days, you are going to flood, even if you live on Pikes Peak. For those who live in a coastal State like my State or elsewhere on a floodplain, the reality is, the NFIP is the only place you can turn to protect your property. Floods are the most common and the most costly natural disaster. The damage that is done by hail, fire, wind, or a fallen tree is covered by a homeowner's insurance but not a flood. If you have a flood, it is not covered by your homeowner's policy.

The Federal Government made a promise. We promised more than 5 million Americans--half a million in my State alone--that we would have their backs. We promised them that if they would pay their hard-earned money into the National Flood Insurance Program through premiums, if they flooded, we would cover it. It is time we get our act together and keep that promise. The NFIP is just too important to be used as a political football. For millions of people in this country, in my State and elsewhere, this program is the only way they can protect their most valuable asset--their home--and, at a minimum, we owe those hard- working Americans some peace of mind.

I urge my colleagues to support S. 3128, my bill and the bill of Bill Cassidy, the senior Senator from Louisiana. It will extend the National Flood Insurance Program for 6 months to get us through hurricane season. That is all it does. It just maintains the status quo. It doesn't change anything. It just says the National Flood Insurance Program we have today is going to be extended for 6 months to get us through hurricane season, while we in the Senate and in the House continue to work on a reform bill that would rework the NFIP and turn it into a program that looks like somebody designed it on purpose. That is all my bill and Senator Cassidy's bill does.

We simply can't afford to let the folks in our at-risk communities down, especially those exposed during hurricane season. Truthfully, they deserve better from us.

Nomination of John Fleming

Mr. President, I want to speak very briefly about a friend of mine who has been nominated by President Trump for a very important position in the Federal Government. This friend's name is John Fleming, and he has been nominated by the President to be Assistant Secretary for the Economic Development Administration at the Department of Commerce.

Dr. Fleming currently serves as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Health IT Reform at the Department of Health and Human Services, and he has done a wonderful job. He has done such a great job that the President has asked him to take on this program at the Department of Commerce.

Dr. Fleming is a public servant's public servant. He is a four-term Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. He is a physician. He went to the University of Mississippi, undergraduate and medical school. He is an entrepreneur and businessman. Aside from his family medical practice, his businesses support about 600 jobs in my State.

After Dr. Fleming finished at Ole Miss and finished med school, he enlisted in the U.S. Navy. He served there in the Medical Corps.

During his time in the House of Representatives, Dr. Fleming was a champion of our economy, a champion for families, and a champion for our veterans. He is a skilled physician, he is an experienced entrepreneur, and he is a good guy. I know Dr. John Fleming and his family well, and I am honored to be able to endorse his nomination.

Just to show you that he is well-rounded--I forgot this--John also has a black belt in karate. I am not sure when he has time, but he is a well-rounded guy.

I have no doubt--none whatsoever--that Dr. Fleming is well qualified to be a very fine Assistant Secretary of the Economic Development Administration, and I endorse his nomination categorically and unconditionally.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I want to talk for a second about an amendment I have to the minibus appropriations package.

I am going to talk very briefly about the amendment, but, first, I want to respond to some of the comments of my friend the Senator from Illinois, for whom I have great respect. I just disagree with him on this subject of the Affordable Care Act, and I want to respond briefly.

Let me tell you what Republicans believe, at least most Republicans whom I know. Most Republicans I know believe what Americans believe, and that is that in our country, if you are hungry, we feed you. If you are homeless, we house you. If you are too poor to be sick, we will pay for your doctor. We in America, Republicans and Democrats, put our money where our mouth is. We spend $1 trillion a year helping people who are less fortunate than we are, and that separates our country from every other country in the world.

Frankly, that is why so many of our neighbors across this great planet want to come to America. It is because we care about other people. I mean, when is the last time you heard of anybody trying to sneak into China or Russia? That is why they want to come to America.

But when a government program, though well intended, isn't working, we owe it to the American taxpayer to explain to them why, and the Affordable Care Act has not worked. I wish it had.

I had the highest hopes. I remember when the Senate debated it. Call me a nerd, but I watched it on C-SPAN. I wanted it to work. We were promised: Look, as a result of this act, we are going to make health insurance accessible, and we are going to make it affordable.

I said: Man, I will take a dozen of those. We have been trying to do that for 50 years around here. Maybe this time we will get it right.

It was offered with the best of intentions. You will never hear me criticize

President Obama for an act of patriotism. He was very well intended. He wanted it to work. It wasn't a question of bad motives. It was just a bad idea.

You know, 150 years ago, doctors used to bleed their patients with the best of intentions, but they stopped doing it because it was a bad idea.

Now, we can do better. I agree with the objectives from the Senator of Illinois. Let me say it again that I have great respect for him, but the American people deserve a health insurance program that looks like somebody designed it on purpose, and that is not the Affordable Care Act. I wish it were, but it is not. We can do better.

Amendment No. 3430

Mr. President, let me hit a lick about my amendment to the minibus appropriation package, H.R. 6147.

Here is the problem. We have a lot of foreign seafood imported into the United States, and some of it is very dangerous. I am afraid to say that a lot of it is very dangerous. I am unhappy to say that.

Our FDA is in charge of making sure that this foreign seafood is safe. It spends $11.9 million a year to do that. My amendment would give the FDA an additional $3.1 million, and here is why it is important.

Last year, the United States imported $21.5 billion worth of seafood--not million, but $21.5 billion. Now, the FDA is supposed to inspect it to make sure that it is safe before you eat it. The FDA does the best it can, but they are only able, with the small amount of money, relatively speaking, that it has, to test a very small sample, 2 percent.

Ninety-eight percent of the foreign seafood coming in is not even tested. When it is tested, the FDA often finds that it contains salmonella, it contains listeria, it contains dirt, and it contains illegal drugs, like antibiotics.

What does that mean?

Well, if you eat enough of the stuff, aside from the fact that you could grow an extra ear or glow in the dark, then, you develop a resistance to antibiotics. If you eat bad seafood, particularly shrimp full of these antibiotics, and you get sick, you get an infection, maybe an abscessed tooth. You go to the doctor, the doctor gives you antibiotics, and they don't work anymore.

Now, remember that we are only examining 2 percent of all seafood imports. If you run the numbers, you will see that barely 0.2 percent of seafood imports are rejected every year. The vast majority, 98 percent, were not even checked. This isn't just about public safety, although that is certainly important. It is also about public policy.

As for American shrimpers, let me tell you what they have to compete against in my State and in other States. They are being asked to compete with foreign fishermen who are unfairly subsidized by the Federal Government and who face little to no environmental regulations and little to no quality control. They fish where they are not supposed to. They ignore international quotas. They pump much of their fish full of illegal drugs, and they don't look out for the health of local ecosystems, as our domestic fisher men and women do.

The result is dangerous. It is unsafe for the American people, and it is unfair to the American shrimpers who do it the right way.

I don't want my family eating it. I don't want my son eating it. I don't want my wife eating it. I don't want my dogs eating it. If the American people are listening, be careful if you eat it.

That is what my amendment does.

With that, I yield the floor.

Vote on Amendment No. 3407

Mr. President, I rise today because, like many Americans, I am deeply troubled by the Democrats' reckless calls to abolish ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. That is why I am introducing a resolution to condemn calls for the abolishment of ICE and express support for all officers and personnel who carry out ICE's important mission of protecting American borders. With the ever present threat of international terrorism in the post-9/11 era, abolishing ICE is unthinkable. As our country battles threats from abroad, a historic opioid crisis, and increasing rates of violence against law enforcement officers, we must show our support for the mission of ICE. That is what this resolution does: It says that we see all of you at ICE and your commitment and that the Senate supports you.

ICE's mission is simple: to protect Americans from the cross-border crime and illegal immigration that threaten our communities. The criminal trafficking of persons and goods across our borders is among the greatest threats to public safety in this country. When ICE agents take to the streets, they are looking to protect our most vulnerable from being exploited by cartels and international gangs like MS-13. This violent gang has taken hold in at least 42 States, including Louisiana.

Just last year, ICE agents removed a million pounds of narcotics and more than 4,800 gang members from the streets of this country. They arrested nearly 800 members of the notoriously violent MS-13 gangs, like Juan Blanco, who was arrested after assaulting someone with a machete in Baton Rouge. Those numbers are just a small fraction of the nearly 127,000 arrests made by ICE agents against people who came here and committed violent crimes against law-abiding Americans. Those criminals were responsible for more than 50,000 assaults, 2,000 kidnappings, and 1,800 homicides.

However, in 2017, assaults on law enforcement officers also rose dramatically. This wasn't limited to police officers; assaults on ICE agents nearly tripled last year. Now, I am shocked to hear that some of my colleagues are calling for this important Federal agency to be abolished. In fact, I learned today that some Democrats in the House of Representatives plan to introduce legislation that would abolish ICE and expose its agents to the scrutiny of international courts. This open contempt for ICE is astonishing, and it belittles the courage of those who work for this Agency and engage in the legitimate defense of our borders.

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency performs vital functions that are necessary to any government, like securing its borders. Last year, agents worked tirelessly around the clock to rescue 1,422 victims of

human trafficking. More than 900 of those victims were children. Abolishing ICE would mean that these people, these precious lives, would still be in grave peril. If we were to heed these extremist calls to abolish ICE, thousands of pounds of heroin, cocaine, and fentanyl would be in our schools and on the streets of our neighborhoods. We cannot ignore the role that ICE agents play in combatting terrorism, sex trafficking, child pornography, gang activity, labor exploitation, and the opioid crisis.

I want to make sure that our agents understand that the American people have their back. My resolution will honor the mission of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency and commend the bravery of these men and women who put their lives on the line every day to dismantle violent and dangerous gangs. I thank all my Republican colleagues who are joining with me on this crucial piece of legislation.

Although much of their work is thankless and goes sight unseen, I am grateful to the thousands of ICE agents who work around the clocks to keep our streets safe. Without them and their tireless service, I can only imagine what our headlines would look like, and I am ashamed of my colleagues on the radical left who are calling for the elimination of this vital agency. I know I speak for more than just myself when I say, simply, don't abolish ICE.