Bill Cassidy

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following bills, en bloc: Calendar No. 451, S. 2546; Calendar No. 452, S. 3946; Calendar No. 453, S. 4077; Calendar No. 454, H.R. 599; Calendar No. 455, H.R. 1060; Calendar No. 456, H.R. 1098; Calendar No. 458, H.R. 3608; Calendar No. 459, H.R. 3728; Calendar No. 460, H.R. 5476; Calendar No. 461, H.R. 5640; Calendar No. 462, H.R. 5712; Calendar No. 463, H.R. 5985; Calendar No. 464, H.R. 6073; Calendar No. 465, H.R. 6651; Calendar No. 466, H.R. 7192; Calendar No. 467, H.R. 7199; and Calendar No. 468, H.R. 7423.

Mr. CASSIDY. I ask unanimous consent that the bills, en bloc, be considered read a third time and passed and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. CASSIDY

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, we just had an election 2 weeks ago. I am not here to lord it over anyone, to gloat or anything else, but it is an important observation that Americans let their voices be heard overwhelmingly to go in another direction, and they voted for Republicans, but they also voted against the status quo. Americans in Louisiana feel that their government is not serving them the way it should. They are struggling to afford trips to the grocery store, their energy bills, and to afford flood insurance. For over 50 years, Americans have relied on the National Flood Insurance Program, or the NFIP, to be a safety net in case of disaster. NFIP covers 4.7 million homes across the country, including families like those in LaPlace, LA, pictured here. For those who are watching on television, there are a bunch of homes, and they are surrounded by water. You can tell where the street is because the water is in the street. Fortunately, there is a little bit of green around most homes, but you can tell that that community is flooded. For many, flood insurance is the only option to have protection against something like this, but the program is not serving Americans the way it should. Skyrocketing insurance premiums caused by FEMA's new risk assessment program, Risk Rating 2.0, has left many people in Louisiana and many families around the Nation with no way to protect their home. Risk Rating 2.0 makes flood insurance unaffordable and puts the entire program at financial risk. Now, despite Congress never approving Risk Rating 2.0, it unfairly jacks up rates, driving people to drop their coverage. Let me repeat that. Despite Congress never approving Risk Rating 2.0, this program by NFIP is jacking up rates, forcing people to drop their coverage. I hear the story from folks in Louisiana constantly, and that is what motivated me and my team to release a detailed report breaking down the current state of NFIP, how it reached this point, and what Congress can do to make flood insurance affordable again. What we found confirmed what people in Louisiana and Americans across the country already know: The National Flood Insurance Program is broken. Now, by the way, this is 19 pages. It is not 600 pages of legalese. It is not something that you read to cure your insomnia. It is 19 pages that a Senator, that a staff person, that someone watching can download and read, and, with 19 pages, you can understand the complex program and understand why it is failing the people it is intended to serve. We did this with the goal that we would help get a program that is affordable, accountable, and sustainable as opposed to the program that FEMA has created, one that is unaffordable and going bankrupt as it forces Americans to drop unaffordable coverage. After storms like Hurricane Helene--which, by the way, showed us that flooding is not just a coastal issue; it is also occurring inland in river systems--we should listen to the American people when they say they are not OK with the status quo. So let's take a look at some of the things in the report. And I warn you, it is not good news. First, we found that the average flood insurance cost in every State rose following Risk Rating 2.0. That was true for 80 percent of people in Louisiana, who saw a spike in their insurance premiums in the first year. Second, NFIP premiums in Louisiana increased by 234 percent, resulting in 52,000 people in Louisiana dropping their policies last year alone. That is 52,000 Louisiana homeowners dropping their policies because it was no longer affordable in just 1 year. I represent Louisiana, but it is not just Louisiana in which this is an issue; nearly half a million Americans nationwide have dropped their coverage. Third, FEMA itself now predicts that up to 1 million policyholders nationwide could lose flood insurance coverage in the next decade. They admit that their pricing is going to devastate the ability of Americans to afford this program. That said, FEMA still refuses to be transparent in terms of how they are calculating premiums, and this lack of transparency with Risk Rating 2.0 leaves policyholders in the dark. This is the reason that we pushed to delay the program's implementation when it was first announced. President Trump did delay it. In 2019, my office worked with the Trump administration to delay Risk Rating 2.0 because of this lack of transparency in how FEMA was calculating rates, but when the Biden administration took over, they allowed Risk Rating 2.0 to move forward even though concerns were never addressed. The end result: Homeowners have high premiums, no explanation, and--I repeat once more--52,000 people in Louisiana dropping coverage, 500,000 people nationwide. A fourth key finding was, as we investigated NFIP and the lawsuits against Risk Rating 2.0 continued, it became clear that FEMA never had the authority to implement Risk Rating 2.0 without congressional approval. Again--I repeated it earlier; I will repeat it again--FEMA never had the authority to implement Risk Rating 2.0 without congressional approval. They never consulted Congress, and we never passed it. They went around Congress, and their explanation, I think, is flimsy. It is like when you catch your child doing something they know they shouldn't be doing. Risk Rating 2.0 did not even adhere to the proper procedure for rulemaking in the executive branch. Risk Rating 2.0 runs counter to what Congress intended, and FEMA had no right to do what they did. So these are the four key findings of the report: One, premiums rose in every State; two, they rose astronomically in places like Louisiana; three, up to 1 million policyholders will drop their coverage because they can no longer afford it; and fourth, FEMA sidestepped Congress to implement this without authority. These findings reflect why the American people overwhelmingly voted for change. The status quo is unacceptable. The NFIP is in desperate need of reform, and it has needed this reform for years. Now Republicans have an opportunity to finally listen to the American people on this issue. Now, being too afraid to touch certain political issues may serve politicians well, but it sets the American people back. Enough is enough. NFIP affects every State. On this chart, you will see States in dark yellow. They have been hit by flooding the most. California, as the Presiding Officer can see right there, through the gulf coast, up the Atlantic, including a State like Pennsylvania which is just tippy-tip on the Atlantic, and an inland State like Missouri--all these have had more than $1 billion in NFIP claims since 1978. The 44 States other than these have had over $50 million in total NFIP claims. This is a national issue. So the message to my colleagues who represent States that rely upon the NFIP is, let's find a way forward. We know what the next steps must be. Congress must pass a comprehensive NFIP reform package that protects families from excessive premium hikes, strengthens mitigation efforts--mitigation: decreasing your risk of flooding--and simplifies the claims process by cutting redtape. FEMA must--absolutely must--reevaluate its pricing methodology and focus on affordability, just as Congress originally intended. FEMA must roll back Risk Rating 2.0, and we must ensure that FEMA does not go rogue, doing things without congressional approval. We also must demand that Congress listen to the feedback from State and local stakeholders. I have a plan to make flood insurance affordable again for all Americans. I am encouraging my colleagues to join. Let's end the status quo. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Gene Powell, who has served the Louisiana constituents of Shreveport, LA. Since September of 1976, Gene Powell has donated over 1,900 blood platelet products in over 700 donation visits. As a U.S. Air Force veteran and 90 years of age, I raise the actions of Gene Powell as selflessness. Today, Gene Powell carries forward his Lifetime Achievement Award by LifeShare Blood Center. His actions ensure improving the lives of countless individuals and service to his community, by publicly honoring him. Thank you to Gene Powell, a veteran and community serviceman; his service will never be forgotten.

Mr. CASSIDY

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

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, for months the HELP Committee, on a bipartisan basis, has investigated the financial mismanagement of Steward Health Care and the impact on the delivery of care at its hospitals. Steward's mismanagement has nationwide implications, affecting patient care in more than 30 hospitals across 8 States, including one in my home State, Glenwood Regional Medical Center in West Monroe, LA. Because of Steward's management decisions resulting in limited resources at Glenwood, the State had to force the hospital to operate at one-third capacity. One patient reportedly died waiting for transfer to another hospital because Glenwood did not have the necessary resources to treat. According to a report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a doctor at Glenwood told a Louisiana State inspector that the hospital was performing ``third-world medicine.'' Now, the problems at Glenwood are not unique. The HELP Committee heard testimony that because of understaffing at a Steward-owned St. Elizabeth's Medical Center in Boston, patients at the hospital waited in the emergency room for hours and sometimes days. We have also heard testimony that Steward neglected to pay the vendors for essential hospital services. At St. Elizabeth's, there is a report that when newborn babies died, nurses had to put their bodies into cardboard shipping boxes because Steward did not pay for proper bereavement boxes. A new mother who experienced a hemorrhage, or a bleed, during childbirth died because a basic piece of medical equipment required to save her life to stop the bleeding had been repossessed because Steward did not pay its bills. Through the committee's investigation, it became evident that a thorough review of Chief Executive Officer Dr. Ralph de la Torre's management decisions was essential to understand Steward's financial problems and its failure to serve its patients. To better understand and hopefully prevent this from happening again, we sought testimony from Dr. de la Torre, frankly, giving him the opportunity to present his side. It is possible that there is something that we didn't understand. And if he presented it, that understanding would have given us a different perspective. Unfortunately, Dr. de la Torre refused to testify voluntarily. As a result, the committee issued a subpoena in July. And up until September 4, his lawyers indicated he intended to comply with the subpoena and to testify. However, 8 days before the scheduled hearing, Dr. de la Torre informed the committee he would not comply with the subpoena. We responded to Dr. De la Torre explaining why his objections to the committee subpoena had no merit, directing him to comply. Unfortunately, Dr. De la Torre ultimately defied the subpoena, refusing to appear before the committee. Now, a witness cannot disregard and evade a duly authorized subpoena. That is why today the Senate will be voting on a resolution to hold Dr. de la Torre in criminal contempt for defying the subpoena. I think it is unfortunate that we are here. But if someone shows contempt for the American people by defying a subpoena and refusing to provide answers, that is a contemptible thing. Congress has a responsibility to act. I urge my colleagues to approve this resolution and to hold Dr. de la Torre in contempt. And with that, I yield to my colleague.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I have come here periodically to speak about issues with the National Flood Insurance Program. I will today, but first I am going to talk about resiliency, environmental resiliency in particular. I am going to talk about acts of heroism; I am going to talk about North Carolina and South Carolina; and then I am going to end up with the National Flood Insurance Program. Let's talk about resiliency. Hurricane Francine just hit my State, and where the Federal Government, State and local governments have invested and completed that investment in building resiliency, we did well. Our country did well. From the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act by itself, $367 million has come to build flood control structures, and where those structures have been completed, they did not flood. It reminded me of a couple of years ago when Hurricane Ida made a direct hit on New Orleans. I was with a mayor and a local elected official. We looked at each other, and one of them said: The ground is dry. Contrasting with Katrina when the levees failed and the whole city flooded, the mayor was making the point the ground is dry. We can build resiliency. That is important for my State. It is important for your State, Madam President. It is important for our country. Wherever there is a threat of environmental disaster, with wise planning and public investment, we can build resiliency. That is the good news, and we saw that from Hurricane Francine. But every now and then, there is still a need for heroism. So I would like to give just some recognition to some folks in my State who did some really positive things. Folks from Louisiana have seen the story, heard the story of a guy named Miles Crawford, a nurse in New Orleans. In the middle of the storm, he gets a text from his brother. Someone had driven into the water and was sinking beneath the bridge. So the truck goes in, and then the truck begins to sink. Miles goes out there. It is on the TV. Somebody videoed it. He walks out there. I don't know how he broke the window, but he breaks the window, and the front is going down, but the person trapped inside comes out the back. I say that because whenever we invest, there is always going to be something that slips through. And I want to give a shout-out to a fellow American who, in an act of heroism--by the way, there were firefighters down in what we call the bayou section. There were the utility linemen who went out after the storm and quickly put the electricity back up. But the point is that as much as we invest, still, we can look to individual Americans doing incredibly positive things for the sake of their fellow Americans. And I just want to give a shout-out to that. That will kind of lead into what I speak of in the National Flood Insurance Program. By the way, it is not just Miles in Lafourche Parish. The sheriff's department saved a total of 26 people from rising waters. They got calls. They went out. They rescued. Heroism almost becomes routine. Now, I am speaking of my State. It is easy to say: Oh, Louisiana floods. But let me talk about who else floods. The Carolinas have just had a rain event. By the way, I mentioned Lafourche Parish, but this is Morgan City. So it was through our region that you see we had rain, but they were able to address it. Now, this is Cherry Grove, SC. So rain events occur throughout our Nation. I remember doing a reform for the National Flood Insurance Program when I was in the House of Representatives, and the Representative from New Mexico suddenly got on my bill. I said: Hey, man, what is happening? He goes: We just had a rain event in our mountain and we had a gully washer and it flooded people in the gully. There was a similar incident from Colorado. So this can be not just on a coastal plain, but it can also be in a riverine system, where there is a sudden gush of water, for whatever reason, and those who are in the valley of the river or the gully also flood. Now, this is South Carolina. And I am using this to make the point that, one, you can build resiliency. As much as you build it, we still need people helping people. And, by the way, this is not limited to Louisiana; it is across our Nation. And this picture just gives us the opportunity to make the point that this recent rain event--September 15, 2024, in the Carolinas--is something which is across our Nation, which brings me to the National Flood Insurance Program. You know, we speak of building resiliency, but, still, we see either the resiliency has not been built or, for whatever other circumstance, there is still flooding. We see that we have these acts of heroism in which individuals help individuals. And, man, that is what makes America great. We see that this is not just in Louisiana, but it is across our country. That is how we get to how fellow Americans help fellow Americans, not just by our brave firefighter, sheriff, or a nurse doing something at the moment but by wise public policy. The wise public policy, as we have mentioned, is building resiliency, but it is also doing things like strengthening the National Flood Insurance Program to make it affordable, to make it accountable, and to make it sustainable. That should be our goal. The National Flood Insurance Program was created for a moment like this. The water is beginning to recede, but you can see water is in here now. Those folks are going to have to pick up the pieces. It was an event that was unexpected. They are flooding, and now they need help from their fellow Americans. They purchased insurance. They have done their part. But we need wise public policy to make sure that that flood insurance is affordable when the high water comes. The National Flood Insurance Program covers about 4.7 million Americans across our country. It enables people to rebuild when a flood destroys their home or just kind of washes out their belongings. There are two challenges that we have in Congress regarding this program. We have to reauthorize it so it doesn't expire on September 30. My colleague Senator John Kennedy is sponsoring that straight-up reauthorization. That straight-up reauthorization is important for at least maintaining that minimum of coverage. But we also have to make it affordable again. Right now, it is unaffordable. It is unaffordable when it doesn't have to be unaffordable. At the heart of the problem is something called Risk Rating 2.0. And Risk Rating 2.0 is a way in which FEMA is adjusting premiums, not to make sure that they are still affordable but to, basically, pay back a $20 billion debt that was accumulated after Hurricane Katrina and there were so many claims upon the system. People in Louisiana consider that a little bit unjust. It was decided by a Federal judge that those levees failed in New Orleans because of a faulty design by the Army Corps of Engineers. But they failed. There are lots of claims, and now premiums are rising in an attempt to pay back that debt. Now, as those premiums have increased, they have become too expensive for some who dropped their coverage because the premium is too expensive. But when the people who are least likely to flood drop their coverage, the risk is concentrated on fewer, which means the premium rises even more, premiums go even higher, and a few more drop off. If we don't work to make this program affordable, it will enter what is called an actuarial death spiral where fewer and fewer are insured, the risk is concentrated on the remaining--which they cannot afford-- and the program falls apart. And this street is out of luck in Cherry Grove, SC, or perhaps in Lafourche Parish, LA, or perhaps even in a place in Nevada, where the Presiding Officer is from. Forty-four States have had over $50 million in NFIP claims. Multiple States have had over $1 billion in NFIP claims since 1978. This is not just a local issue; this is a national issue. And so my message to colleagues who represent--here you see it. Greater than $1 billion is the dark. Greater than $50 million is the in-between color between the light--notably, again, the Presiding Officer is from Nevada, which you think of as being a relatively arid State, but they have had over $50 million worth of claims in their State. But these have had over $1 billion. So I am just asking colleagues to recognize that just as a firefighter, as a nurse, as a sheriff helps a neighbor in the middle of a trying time, the National Flood Insurance Program is a way that Americans help fellow Americans after a trying time. And wherever you see a color here, there are fellow Americans who have been helped by this program. We are 12 days away from the September 30 expiration date. I would ask that we reauthorize and reform the National Flood Insurance Program before the opportunity has passed. Reauthorizing gives us time we need to find the right solution. We can reauthorize before the end of the year and find the right solution. It may be this Congress, it may be next Congress, but it is something that we must do. It must be bipartisan. It must reflect the interests of States across the Nation. But it is something that is the epitome of Americans helping fellow Americans. I look forward to fellow Members and their staff speaking to my staff and I about this. Let's solve this problem. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, when President Biden and Vice President Harris took office, we had the lowest rate of illegal immigration in nearly 50 years. But instead of maintaining strong border policies inherited from President Trump, the Biden-Harris administration rushed to overturn them. They ended ``Remain in Mexico,'' reimposed so-called catch-and-release, and exempted unaccompanied children from title 42. The result was predictable. The Biden-Harris open border policies encouraged the worst rates of illegal immigration ever, including over 500,000 unaccompanied migrant children. In fact, the month after migrant children were exempted from title 42, we saw the highest monthly total of unaccompanied children crossing the southern border in history. The influx of migrant children under the Biden-Harris administration overwhelmed the Office of Refugee Resettlement, also abbreviated the ORR. This is the Agency responsible for unaccompanied children apprehended at the border and responsible for releasing them to thoroughly vetted sponsors. ORR responded to this influx by sending children to hastily constructed emergency care facilities with untrained, unvetted staff and poor living conditions. The Agency also removed key sponsor-vetting requirements after senior Biden-Harris officials directed ORR to expedite the process of releasing migrant children to outside sponsors. It is so easy to interpret this as a means to shield the White House from the political embarrassment of facilities overrun with unaccompanied children crossing the border that they had just opened. In fact, as early as July 21, ORR staff warned superiors that ORR leadership had dismantled sponsor-vetting policies and that these changes weakened ORR's ability to protect children from risk such as trafficking and exploitation. Despite this, ORR left these policies in place for years while hundreds of thousands of children were released to poorly vetted sponsors. You know, sometimes, it is easy to think this is partisan. Sometimes, it is easy to lose track as Republicans and Democrats talk about issues. But now, we are talking about kids--children that could be our children--who are being released to people who are not being vetted. It is easy to forget that. This is not partisan. This is something which should concern us all. As a ranking member of the Senate HELP Committee, I am investigating the administration's failure to protect these migrant children from exploitation and abuse. I have learned that some of these children were forced into dangerous working conditions and exploited for illegal labor. At one such facility currently under investigation, a child was pulled into a meat processing machine. By the way, again, we are not making this up. We have testimony from witnesses who speak to all of these facts. We have the whistleblowers who came to a roundtable. We have got the transcripts. I have also learned that ORR's weakening of sponsor-vetting requirements directly led to children being put in harm's way. And in one instance, ORR neglected to verify whether the sponsor's claimed address was even a real home, and they sent this child to an address nothing more than open field. In another case, a 16-year-old was released to a sponsor who posted sexually explicit photos of the child on social media, including a photo with the sponsor touching the child inappropriately. In addition to my investigation, I joined Senators Grassley and Johnson earlier this summer in hosting a Senate roundtable to examine ORR's failures and identify steps Congress could take to reform the Agency. We learned that due to failure at ORR, some unaccompanied children have been forced into drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and other criminal activity to pay off the cartels who brought them. All of this--according to whistleblowers--without followup or meaningful oversight from the Biden-Harris administration. I repeat: This is not rhetoric, not fiction. This is what we are hearing from whistleblowers. This exploitation also seemingly occurs while migrant children are still in ORR custody. In July, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Southwest Key Programs, the largest ORR contractor housing unaccompanied children, alleging that for nearly a decade, its employees have committed sexual abuse and harassment against unaccompanied children as young as 5 years old. DOJ alleges that Southwest Key not only failed to take sufficient action to prevent sexual abuse but actively discouraged children from officially reporting these incidents. Once more, this is not rhetoric. This is as a result of whistleblowers. This should not be partisan. In August, I called on the HELP Committee chair to hold a hearing with Southwest Key and ORR officials to answer how these shocking allegations of sexual abuse went undetected for so long. So far, HELP Committee Democrats have not committed to a hearing or any effort to investigate. And, by the way, Southwest Key still receives hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to operate shelters for migrant kids. If ORR will not take action in the wake of these allegations, Congress should. That is why I worked with Senator Grassley on legislation that would prohibit the use of Federal funds for Southwest Key or any other ORR grantee facing suspension and debarment procedures for allowing illegal sexual abuse or harassment of children in its care. I appreciate Senator Grassley's leadership. The problems with ORR and the exploitation of children have been well-documented for years. Yet there has been no substantive effort by Biden or Harris to fix their open border policies--which caused these problems to begin with--or reform ORR to protect unaccompanied children from harm. The exploitation of children should not be partisan. This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. When vulnerable children are harmed or die at the expense of bad policies or bad procedures or bad process, everyone should be outraged and everyone should be demanding change. Unfortunately, it is clear that Republicans are taking this problem more seriously than Democrats. It is not a messaging issue. It is an issue that challenges the humanity within us. It is something we should address whether or not it is an election year. I wish that my Democratic colleagues would join Republicans tonight to pass this commonsense bill to hold ORR contractors accountable for the abuse and exploitation of children under their watch. We should protect these vulnerable children from harm as if they were our own. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that William McCarthy, an intern in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of today's session of the Senate.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the Veterans Celebration Committee, which has been together since 1999 to honor and support veterans throughout northwest Louisiana. Every year, the Veterans Celebration Committee puts on a veterans honor ceremony in Shreveport. This past year, they held a program at the Shreveport Municipal Auditorium on Veterans Day. At that event, they honored specific veterans who make enormous contributions to their country and community. One such veteran was Mr. Sam Archie Mattox, who turned 104 years old last September. He served in the 642nd Company Army Field Organization and in Australia, the Philippines, Papua New Guinea, and Japan for 26 months during World War II. He was awarded two Bronze Stars, among other medals, and worked as a brick mason until he was 92 years old. The Veterans Celebration Committee also honored veterans who served in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and in other theaters and now support churches, businesses, nonprofit groups, and other veterans in northwest Louisiana. One overcame homelessness to help homeless veterans in Shreveport. Another organizes fundraising events for Toys for Tots. Yet another serves as the assistant medical director for Overton Brooks VA Medical Center. The Veterans Celebration Committee ensures that northwest Louisiana knows about their accomplishments and service to the community, by publicly honoring them. They also hold a veterans parade on the day after the veterans honor ceremony to give the community another opportunity to show their love for veterans. This year's parade will be the 13th to take place. Moreover, they hold an annual event close to Memorial Day that supports the family members of veterans and honors those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. When the Veterans Celebration Committee started its work in 1999, one of its cofounders was retired Air Force Colonel Steve dePryssler, who is the only known American to serve in World War II, Korea, French Indo-China, and Vietnam. He helped veterans obtain disability benefits, hosted annual POW-Purple Heart veteran's luncheons, established the Northwest Louisiana Veterans Home Trust Fund, and volunteered for 47 years at the Barksdale AFB retiree center, without pay. He passed away in 2020 at the age of 101, and every year, the committee gives an award in his name for outstanding service to veterans. Today, the Veterans Celebration Committee carries forward the legacy of Colonel dePryssler to support and honor veterans in northwest Louisiana. I want to specifically thank Caddo Parish Commissioner Ken Epperson, Sr., for chairing the committee, and everyone who supports their efforts, including American Legion and VFW posts, Active and Reserve military units, Barksdale Air Force Base, and elected officials throughout the region. Thanks to them, our veterans are not forgotten and never will be.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, today, the HELP Committee held an off- the-floor markup to consider three Biden-Harris labor nominees, including a new term for current National Labor Relations Board, or NLRB, Chair Lauren McFerran. Chair Sanders directed this vote to take place without a public hearing or an opportunity to hear from the nominees directly. Ms. McFerran has served as a member of the NLRB since 2014, and President Biden picked her as Chair in 2021. It has been 10 years since Ms. McFerran has testified before the HELP Committee. Since the HELP majority decided to skip a hearing to prevent an examination of Ms. McFerran's troubling record, I am speaking about her nomination on the Senate floor. When multiple Board seats are vacant, the Senate's longstanding practice is to fill Democrat and Republican vacancies on important, bipartisan Boards and Commissions in tandem, but last September, Democrats reconfirmed Gwynne Wilcox, a Democrat nominee, without a Republican counterpart even though there were multiple vacant seats. The Senate should have considered Joshua Ditelberg as a pairing with Wilcox, not with Ms. McFerran. It is bad faith that the majority would represent these nominations as a pairing to justify this process. As to the substance of Ms. McFerran's nomination, the NLRB is required by Federal law to act as a neutral party in labor disputes between employees and employers, not favoring one party over the other, but under Ms. McFerran's leadership, the Board has weaponized its authority on behalf of Democrats' labor union supporters at the expense of workers. For example, the Board has overturned 50 years of NLRB precedent by renewing card check during union elections, which exposes workers to intimidation tactics; condensed the time for union elections down to as little as 3 weeks after a petition is filed, depriving employees of a fair chance to hear from both sides and to make an informed decision about whether to unionize; and implemented new, burdensome regulations preventing workers from leaving their union if the union has become ineffective or too costly. It has prevented employers from disciplining employees on the picket line who use racist and hostile language against other employees and managers. The NLRB deems using racist and hostile language as ``protected concerted activity.'' The weaponization of NLRB under Ms. McFerran's leadership is deeply troubling. Her clear bias against employers' and workers' rights deserves accountability. Republican members of the HELP Committee have repeatedly called on the chair to hold a public hearing to discuss these concerns directly with her. It is unacceptable that they will be denied this opportunity. Nomination hearings are not just checking a box; they are a crucial part of Congress's responsibility to review nominees. Every Senator uses information revealed in hearings to decide how he or she will vote on the flo or. Unfortunately, shielding Democrat nominees from scrutiny has been the norm of the HELP Committee under Chair Sanders. Earlier this year, the chair decided to hold a closed-door committee vote on the renomination of Julie Su for Secretary of Labor. Since Ms. Su's first nomination attempt failed last year, concerns over her leadership of DOL have grown. HELP Committee members should have been able to raise these concerns with Ms. Su directly. Unfortunately, the chair blocked the public hearing from taking place. Congress has a responsibility to rein in the executive branch and hold it accountable to the people and their elected representatives. Last month, I introduced legislation requiring each Federal nominee to testify before the committee of jurisdiction prior to Senate confirmation. This bill should not be controversial to anyone. Frankly, it should be the standard. The chair's refusal to have public hearings on important nominees is unacceptable. It undermines the committee's constitutional duty to advise and consent on Presidential nominees. The President and his nominees are not above accountability. Given the serious concerns over Ms. McFerran's leadership and lack of accountability in the nomination process, I voted no on her nomination. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, Social Security is a sacred trust between the American people and our government. It is a promise to workers, many of whom have no other savings besides Social Security. A promise, almost by definition, does not change. It remains consistent despite new challenges. It is just a question of whether society has the courage to honor that commitment. Now Social Security as we know it is headed for a fiscal cliff in 9 years. If it hits that cliff, if we do nothing and we just attempt to borrow our way out of it, there will be an estimated $615 trillion in accumulated debt over the next 75 years--again, if we just attempt to borrow our way out of it. If we don't borrow our way out of it, there is a 20- to 24-percent cut in benefits to Social Security recipients, both current and future. This is the rock and the hard place: either the 20-percent or so cut or, with borrowing costs, a $615 trillion addition to our Nation's deficit. I have spoken before on Social Security. Today, I want to focus on two unfair provisions that we would eliminate if we actually have a chance to address Social Security, the larger picture. The two I will speak of are the windfall elimination provision and the government pension offset, also known as WEP and GPO. These penalize families across the country who worked in a State or a local public service job for part of their career and had a pension separate from Social Security. How did we get here? WEP and GPO were introduced by President Clinton and Speaker Gingrich decades ago to address perceived inequalities in the Social Security system, but it had the effect actually of creating inequalities. When someone, say, worked for the State of Louisiana or the State of California, and then they didn't pay into the Social Security system, but they left that job after 20 years and went into the private sector, and they worked for 20 years paying into the Social Security system, getting their quotas, here, they were unfairly penalized, overly penalized for the years in which they did not contribute into Social Security. What the windfall elimination provision does is it reduces the Social Security benefit of individuals who also receive a pension from non- Social-Security-covered employment--for example, State or local government. This has resulted in thousands of individuals who have paid into Social Security during their career but nonetheless received an overly reduced Social Security benefit when they retired. This is WEP. Now let's talk about the government pension offset. The GPO reduces Social Security spousal or survivor benefits for individuals who also receive a government pension. This provision can reduce or even eliminate Social Security benefits that a spouse or a widow might have expected and relied upon. Louisiana has more first responders per capita than any other State in the Nation and tens of thousands of teachers, meaning that our State is disproportionately affected by WEP and GPO. A few years ago, I met a retired Louisiana schoolteacher impacted by GPO--again, government pension offset. She had been a teacher. Her husband had paid into Social Security. She should have gotten the spousal benefit from Social Security, but it was remarkably reduced. She cried in my office. She was unable to understand why she was getting less in Social Security spousal benefits than if she had never worked at all. Think about that. If she had never taught, she would have gotten more benefits than the fact that she did teach and was subject to this government pension offset. She felt that she was punished for being a teacher, educating generations of Louisiana children. Indeed, she was, and she is. There is no excuse to treat public servants this way. WEP and GPO should never have become laws, but we have an opportunity to fix them. With President Biden stepping aside in the Presidential race, he has the opportunity to show Presidential leadership--the Presidential leadership he failed to demonstrate until now--on the issue of Social Security. If he is going to serve as President for several more months, why not support a bipartisan plan to save Social Security, to hold true to the promise to our seniors, as well as to make the system fair, with one of his last acts in office. The American people deserve a President willing to work for them. Here is an opportunity.

Mr. CASSIDY

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

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, think about how much has happened over the last several weeks. We have had one Presidential candidate survive an assassination attempt. Our current President is dropping out of the race. We have had protesters burning an American flag and raising a Palestinian flag as the United States' closest ally gave a speech to Congress yesterday. That is how much has happened in several weeks. Guess what hasn't happened in 25 years? An update of how to protect children on their online experience. That has not changed in 25 years, even when so much happens in just a few weeks. So rules from 25 years ago cannot effectively govern social media sites that did not exist 25 years ago, were not conceived of 25 years ago. We have waited too long to update these rules, but today we have a chance to fix. The current armor protecting children's internet activity passed into law in 1998. Babies born that year are well into their professional careers. People were concerned about Y2K, and Nick Saban had not become LSU's football coach. Of course, the 1998 rules do not prohibit Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok from collecting personal information on young teenagers without consent because that was not envisioned 25 years ago. Today, the internet is an integral part of a child's life. The information a child has access to has drastically expanded, exposing children to risks that they may not have the maturity to navigate independently. The internet has so many good things and can be a great learning tool for our children. But we can't ignore the dangers--the adult content, the pornography, the cyber bullying, the violence, the predatory behavior, the overall impact upon our children's mental health. Our children should not be left to face these challenges alone. Under current law, the law passed in 1998--good for the time, but not for now--only children less than age 13 were covered, leaving a whole population of teenagers unprotected. With 95 percent of teenagers between 13 and 17 using social media, their protections should be expanded. By expanding these protections, by banning targeted advertising, by limiting data collection, and strengthening parental control, COPPA 2.0 enables safer online experiences and guards against exposure to manipulation and exploitation. This, in lockstep with the Kids Online Safety Act, or KOSA, will give the parents the peace of mind to know their child is safer than they were before. These bills empower parents. They empower children. They are bipartisan no-brainers, which is why they have overwhelming bipartisan support in both Chambers of Congress. Look, I am a doctor, a father, a grandfather. But I am not the only grandfather and father voting on these pieces of legislation. Anyone with children knows that they would do anything to protect those children. Congress has a chance to reflect that paternal and maternal instinct and take a serious step to protect our children. These bills will make a difference. I urge my colleagues to support. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I rise today to commend and honor the 150th anniversary of First Baptist Church Baton Rouge. Since its founding, on September 30, 1874, First Baptist Church Baton Rouge has served as a cornerstone of faith, community, and service-- bringing people to know the everlasting love and salvation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Over the past century and a half, First Baptist Church Baton Rouge has been dedicated to the spiritual growth and well-being of its congregation, offering a place of worship, fellowship, and support for all who enter its doors. First Baptist Church Baton Rouge has been a beacon of hope, providing outreach programs, educational initiatives, and charitable services that have positively impacted all involved. Additionally, the church fosters a strong sense of community and embodies the values of love, compassion and service through worship, music, education, and outreach continues to make a profound difference in the lives of individuals and families in Baton Rouge and beyond. On this significant milestone, we recognize and celebrate the enduring legacy of First Baptist Church Baton Rouge and its contributions to the cultural, spiritual, and social fabric of our community. It is truly an honor and privilege to commemorate First Baptist Church Baton Rouge on their 150th anniversary. I ask that we extend best wishes for many more years of valuable ministry and service.

Mr. CASSIDY

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

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I happen to know you are from Mississippi, and so as I speak about flood insurance, I suspect there are people in Mississippi whom you know or, perhaps, are related to who can relate to that which I describe. I am speaking specifically about the uncertainty felt by those who rely upon flood insurance as we enter hurricane season. Unfortunately and tragically, we actually have a real, live example of this as Hurricane Beryl has hit an area that was devastated by Harvey just a few years ago. And anyone along that gulf coast who is dependent upon flood insurance to rebuild--and their premiums just rose--have now been hit by Beryl, and they can anticipate their premiums rising once more. A program that is supposed to give security, instead, is creating anxiety. It isn't just the people who flood because some people who don't flood and who have never flooded will see their premiums rise as well. Why? It is because of the way that this program is being implemented. Let me say that Louisiana stands with Mississippi; Louisiana stands with Texas; and we stand with all parts of the Nation that will suffer under the way that this program is being implemented. So let me put up my first floor chart. We have the National Flood Insurance Program--or NFIP, as we call it--as a safety net for homeowners after a storm. It protects them from being financially wiped out by a hurricane or any other act of flooding. But this year is different from past years for two reasons. First, the National Weather Service predicts that 2024 will see above-normal hurricane activity in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Second, there is much more uncertainty about--and this is the key thing--whether NFIP will remain affordable due to FEMA's new risk assessment system called Risk Rating 2.0. For most people, the short answer is no--no that it will remain affordable. But this is not the issue just for Louisiana. It affects Mississippi. It affects Texas. It affects all coasts and anyplace where there is a river or a stream. Anyplace there is water, there is a risk of flooding. The National Flood Insurance Program covers 4.7 million policies across the country. And so those 4.7 million Americans rely upon NFIP to insure their homes and businesses, to keep their family safe. And we have seen flooding in States that you typically don't think of when you say ``flooding.'' Virginia, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, New York, New Jersey, Texas, Pennsylvania, California, Mississippi, and Alabama are all States that have had more than $1 billion in NFIP claims since 1978. Again, these States, over $1 billion in claims since 1978. And those are just the States hardest hit, those in the dark. These lighter colored States have all been affected as well. Now, maybe not a billion, but if you are the family whose home has been washed away, it has affected you in one of the most profound ways. I will also point out that this is not a rich man's program. If you look in these communities, like in Pennsylvania, oftentimes that is called riverine flooding. And folks who are less well-off tend to have the older homes in the bottom of the valley. When the flooding goes through and rips up their home, they have fewer financial resources by which to rebuild. So the kind of charge that this only protects luxury homes on a beach--totally false. This is for middle-income families, working families, and poor families, allowing them to have the security that they can rebuild after a tragic event. In the past 3 years, we have seen seven major flooding events across the country, each costing more than $1 billion. In 2021, Louisiana saw flash flooding affecting thousands of homes. California, the State the Presiding Officer now represents, has had two major floods--in January 2021 and the winter of 2023. Kentucky and Missouri both saw major flooding in July 2022 and Florida, in April 2023. Vermont, New York, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Illinois were each hit in July 2023. In December 2023, we saw flooding along the east coast States from Florida to Maine. Remember, these are just the floods that caused over $1 billion in damage. When we consider, once again, who lives in these areas most affected, we see why we need to keep the NFIP affordable for working families. Sixty-two percent of all NFIP policies are in parishes and counties where the median household income is below the national average of about $54,000 a year. Once more, these are not billionaires' beach homes. Hard-working people are uncertain whether they will be able to stay in their homes because of a decision made by a bureaucracy with zero input from Congress. Now we are seeing the consequences of that decision, with an estimated 900,000 people--one-fifth of all policies-- dropping coverage because it is unaffordable. When that happens, the pool of policyholders shrinks, and the program enters what is called an actuarial death spiral. That is where the risk is put on fewer people, which raises the premiums even more, which make those who are, relatively speaking, least at risk drop their policies, which concentrates it more--once more, a death spiral, setting up the program for collapse. Congress needs to do something before it is too late. First, we need to step back and ask how we got into this situation. Why did FEMA implement Risk Rating 2.0? Why inject this much uncertainty into the system? Congress never passed a bill requiring that FEMA implement this. President Biden could have stopped it with the stroke of a pen. We have done it in the past. In 2019, my office worked with the Trump administration to successfully delay implementation because of concerns over the methodology of how FEMA was calculating rates. This time, even though the concerns remain, the Biden administration would not work with us. Since the Biden administration is allowing this to happen, Congress must step in. My team has worked on a bipartisan solution that will roll back Risk Rating 2.0 and make flood insurance affordable and accountable again. Let me say to my colleagues: Let's talk about it. Let's have a conversation. Every single Member of this body has constituents who rely on the National Flood Insurance Program. We owe it to them to find a solution to a system that isn't working for Americans who were promised a safety net in case of a flood. Let's get to work.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Lisa Johnson, who has provided exceptional leadership for two decades as president of the Bossier Chamber of Commerce. Since assuming her role in June 2004, Ms. Johnson's hard work has transformed the chamber, fostering remarkable growth in membership, community presence, advocacy efforts, and military relations. Under her leadership, the Chamber achieved its five-star accreditation from the U.S. Chamber in 2019, a distinction earned by only 3 percent of chambers nationwide. Additionally, it was twice named Louisiana's Chamber of the Year, recognized as a Military Friendly Chamber by Ventrepreneur Magazine, and honored as the 2018 Louisiana Association of Chamber Executives Chamber of the Year. Ms. Johnson's impact extends well beyond the chamber. She is widely acknowledged for her role in connecting people and opportunities throughout Louisiana. Serving on several boards, including the Military Affairs Council, STARBASE, Bossier Office of Community Services, NWLa Military Support Foundation, Step Forward Leadership Council and Workforce Committee, and as an ex-officio member of the Independence Bowl Foundation, Ms. Johnson exemplifies unwavering dedication to community service. Her appointment as honorary commander for the 96th Bomb Squadron at Barksdale Air Force Base in 2018 underscores her profound commitment to supporting our military. Ms. Johnson's leadership and contributions have made her an invaluable asset to Louisiana. On behalf of our State's residents, I extend my heartfelt gratitude to Ms. Johnson for her tireless dedication and selfless service. I ask that we unite in honoring and celebrating Ms. Lisa Johnson for her outstanding leadership and profound impact on both the Bossier community and the State of Louisiana.

Mr. CASSIDY

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

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I have been sitting here listening to this, and I can't help but notice that my Democratic fellow Senators have chosen to disrespect and deceive the American people as they politicize a deeply personal issue for short-term political gain-- distorting facts, capitalizing on the pain and the longing of women desperate to conceive, families desperate to hold a child. Democrats are trivializing, for political purposes, the substantial emotional, financial, and personal investment required of a woman and of a family to become pregnant through IVF. Let's set the record straight. I support IVF. Republicans in the Senate support IVF. Now, the tragic situation in Alabama has been used to fearmonger and scare that IVF is somehow in jeopardy, as though for someone who has a hope for a future family, that hope is threatened. And that is not true. Let's just say there is no State in the United States of America that prohibits a woman from growing her family through IVF, and Democrats know that. Let me say that again. There is not a single State which bans IVF; and Alabama, which has been mentioned several times, specifically passed a law after the Mobile incident in which they make sure-- affirm--that IVF is available. So this bill before us today would have done nothing to prevent that which happened in Mobile, where embryos were dropped and destroyed. In the recent case at Mobile's Center for Reproductive Medicine, a hospital patient wandered into the embryology lab--how did that happen?--removed five human embryos from cryostorage, and dropped them, destroying the embryos. Tragically, cases like this are not isolated. There was a storage tank failure in San Francisco that resulted in the death of 3,500 eggs and human embryos and another in Ohio in which 4,000 eggs and human embryos died. A recent investigation into a fertility clinic with 33 locations across the country uncovered multiple instances of accidental embryo destruction, mislabeled embryos, and labs with faulty heating, ventilation, and air conditioning. Just this year, a fertility clinic in California used hydrogen peroxide instead of distilled water during the incubation period--used hydrogen peroxide instead of distilled water--rendering all of the embryos nonviable. Then, if you can believe it, the clinic allegedly transferred more than two dozen embryos into would-be mothers despite knowing that this would not end in a pregnancy. It is expected, at a minimum, that fertility clinics protect and respect human life, keeping these treasured embryos safe. Women, mothers, parents--they deserve better. But what we have today is a haphazardly copied and pasted bill that sets up a messy hierarchy of unfunded mandates and inconsistent policies. For example, under this legislation, private insurance companies are required to provide unlimited fertility treatments and related storage, but the bill limits how many treatments a veteran can get through the VA clinic. So why are women who receive care at the VA treated differently than those with commercial insurance? If access to IVF is really a problem and this legislation is really needed, we could have addressed that if we had taken this bill through the committee process, but I note that Leader Schumer plucked it out of the committee before we had a chance to address the shortcomings, and he brought it to the floor for, I presume, political purposes. By the way, we don't even have a CBO score. That is usually like, you can't bring anything to the floor unless you have a Congressional Budget Office score. How much is it going to cost? It is because this is not serious legislation. The CBO, by the way, acknowledges that it has not evaluated and cannot evaluate this mash-up of bills. The committee process would have allowed us to explore the effect of a mandate on Federal programs like Medicare, the DOD, the VA, small businesses, and State Medicaid programs. So how will this legislation impact that woman business owner with 20 employees, 10 of whom are women in their childbearing years? We don't know. We don't know because this is not serious legislation. It was not taken through the committee process. It is a political process. Now, we can guess. Premiums will skyrocket. I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.

Mr. CASSIDY

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