Bill Cassidy

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. I know of no further debate on the nomination.

Mr. CASSIDY

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

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, 20 years ago this month, Hurricane Rita hit Louisiana, and 1 year ago tomorrow, Hurricane Francine hit Louisiana. This is damage from Hurricane Francine in Morgan City and Metairie. And our State gets ready. We are prepared. We stockpile gasoline for generators. We get water, food, medication, and, if necessary, board up windows. We secure our pets and our livestock. A friend of mine sent a video showing how she was preparing her pigs' pen for the storm. So she had to take care of her pig. I won't say that we are casual, no. We are very alert, but we also learn to be calm. But let me point out, when Hurricane Francine made landfall on the 11th, people in Ascension, Assumption, Lafourche, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Mary, and Terrebonne Parishes--and others--had significant flooding. Thankfully, no lives were lost, but a lot of damage occurred. Homes flooded, some ruined entirely. Many lost power. In total, Hurricane Francine caused more than $1.5 billion in damage across Louisiana. Now, because of it, I have spent the last year making sure that my State receives every Federal resource possible; first, for recovery and, next, for mitigation. One example of recovery aid I was pleased to announce was a $118 million grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development specifically for Hurricane Francine relief. But do you know what is even better than recovery? Not flooding in the first place. As they say, a stitch in time saves nine or a levy can prevent--a levy can prevent--millions of dollars' worth of damage. There was a report from the National Institute of Building Sciences that $1 invested in preventing flooding can save up to $6 in flood damage. In President Trump's first administration, he created a program called Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities--or BRIC for short--and it provided many lifesaving grants that Louisiana benefited from. Now, this administration--President Trump's second term--has held up some of the money, but I am told, I have been assured by OMB Director Russ Vought that they are going to release those funds. Through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, I have secured over $10 billion for Louisiana, and a lot of that has been for flood mitigation; and just weeks after Hurricane Francine, announced a separate grant of $206 million for elevating flood-prone homes in Orleans, Calcasieu, East Baton Rouge, and Lafayette Parishes, and a lot in between; and also $1.5 million for the Louisiana Department of Public Safety for emergency protective measures taking care of Hurricane Francine; and then another $1.5 million in May. In the past, I have discussed some of the worst floods in our State's history: Milton, Helene, Laura, Ida, and Katrina. I have spoken about flooding in Texas, New Mexico, and New York. This is not just a Louisiana problem; it is a Florida problem; it is a--from this, you can see it is a national problem, with the dark yellow being States that have had significant flooding, over $1 billion in National Flood Insurance Program claims, and the lighter tan States being those that had over $50 million in claims. So every flood is a little bit different, but the message I always emphasize is the same: Americans need stability, and right now that stability is being threatened. The National Flood Insurance Program--also called NFIP--has provided Americans with access to affordable flood insurance for the last 50 years. As we go now toward a government shutdown if the Congress doesn't act, if the government is not funded, the National Flood Insurance Program lapses, leaving the nearly 500,000 Louisianans and over 5 million Americans without coverage. Now, hurricane season won't be over for 2 more months. Where does that leave the elderly folks in Calcasieu Parish or the young couple buying their first home in St. Charles Parish or the single mom in St. Bernard Parish providing for her child, living paycheck to paycheck? We cannot let a congressional funding fight keep them from receiving the coverage they need. And, by the way, even if Congress averts a shutdown, we are not yet in the clear. We need a long-term solution. Congress has already passed 33 short-term extensions in the last 10 years--33. It sounds kind of like a ``Saturday Night Live'' skit. So I think we can all agree that a program which has been extended 33 times is worth reauthorizing long term. And don't you think that Congress should protect a program helping millions of Americans from California through New Mexico, all the way up to New York, and, of course, including my home State of Louisiana? I haven't spoken to every single homeowner in America or in Louisiana enrolled in the NFIP, but I can imagine they are all wondering why can't the government get its act together. It is irresponsible for Congress to continue to make families hold their breath and hope the rug will not be pulled out from underneath them. That is a pattern that should end. To do so, we must be sure that the government is funded so that NFIP survives September. We then need to pass a long-term extension so that NFIP policyholders can rely on the program to do what it is supposed to do: provide stability. Let's keep the National Flood Insurance Program alive, and then let's keep it strong, reliable, and worthy of the trust that millions of American families place it in every day. In this, we have talked about recovery from hurricanes; we have talked about how to prevent flooding, which is to say make it so that you don't have to recover because you have already built resiliency; and we have talked about the work that must be done for those on the National Flood Insurance Program. Right now, without a promise of protection hanging in the balance, I am calling once for more stability, for certainty in a program that millions rely on. Mr. President, 500,000 in Louisiana alone should not be held hostage by short-term funding battles. We have seen what happens when the water rises. We have seen the damage. We have seen the need. Let's act now so that when the next storm comes, families don't have to wonder whether their coverage will be there. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I regret to say that my Democratic colleagues have become addicted to hating President Trump, and it is no longer about policy or even strong disagreement. It seems to be an obsession--obsessed with finding every way possible to undermine the President and his agenda, no matter the cost. And what they have done to the nomination process in the Senate might be the height of partisanship since President Trump returned to office. Democrats have blocked 100 percent--that is, 100 percent--of President Trump's nominees from being confirmed by unanimous consent or voice vote. Now, by the way, why do I say--my chart here. Look at this. It has been the tradition for noncontroversial nominees to be confirmed by the Senate. And in the first Trump, it fell from 90 percent under President Obama--games Democrats play--to 65 percent under Trump 1. Well, it turns out it was 57 percent under Biden. Now, under Trump 2, we have zero percent of the nominees approved by unanimous consent. Let's put that in perspective. We are speaking about noncontroversial nominees, and it has been something that has been consistent for Presidents of both parties for decades, as we can see from this chart. And yet here we are, 8 months into President Trump's second term, and not a single nominee confirmed by unanimous consent or voice vote-- zero, zip, nada. By the way, these nominees made it through committee with bipartisan support on the record. Democrats, Republicans both voted for them in committee, and yet we can't get them off the floor without tying up precious floor time. Now, that may sound like process. It might sound like: Oh, my gosh. We are talking about time. This is how the Senate works, in terms of getting the nomination through quickly, allowing the legislative issues addressing our country to then be faced. It is a full-blown example of Democrats not caring if the business of government gets done. They would rather obstruct President Trump than to allow the American people to be served. Now, Americans are sick of it. They want Congress to work, and Republicans are showing up to work. We are ready to confirm the people required to work in government to keep the country running, but Democrats are holding nominees for ransom it seems for no other reason than their desire to obstruct President Trump. So why does Congress have such a low approval rating? Why do people think this place doesn't work? It is because of stunts like this, blowing up the standard operating procedure, which allows us to get on the work of the people, all to score cheap political points. Now, the American people chose President Trump. They gave Republicans control of the House and the Senate. They told us the agenda they wanted pursued. So when Democrats dig in their heels, kick and scream, they are proving that they did not hear the message the American people sent last November. If no one is standing with you but your own party insiders and maybe the occasional liberal cable news host, then your resistance isn't brave. It is meaningless. It is an obstruction. It is only there to defeat the will of the American people. It is noise. The American people deserve better. Republicans are ready to deliver. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

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

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, Americans want Congress to deliver. Americans want Congress to work. They want Congress to not just work as in being here but work as in collaborate and cooperate in order to get things done. But the reason there are such low expectations is because of days like today. My colleagues--are they proud of this? Is this what they think their constituents want? If you go back to any State and talk to, like, normal people-- Democrat, Republican--they probably all agree that this place worked better. So why do my Democratic colleagues seem intent on undermining the normal operating procedure of the Senate, frankly grinding us to a halt? Who is asking them to do this? If they go to the States, are their Democrat voters saying: Hey, listen, can Congress do a worse job? Can you become even less effective? Now, if you would be too embarrassed to ask your own constituents, you should be embarrassed now. We are 7 months into President Trump's administration, and we have approved zero percent of his nominees by voice vote or unanimous consent. You may say: Well, that is not anything strange. No, it is quite strange. You can see that under H.W. Bush, 98 percent of the nominees were voice vote or unanimous consent; President Clinton, a Democrat, 98 percent; George W. Bush, 90 percent; Barack Obama, 90 percent; Trump 1--if you don't like Trump, you could have stopped then--65 percent; and then President Biden, 57 percent. I guess there has been a decline, but this is an abrupt stop. It is frustrating. Zero percent. Zero percent. Now, we would all like to be with our families. We would like to be meeting our constituents. We would like to find out what is going on in our own districts. But we are having to battle this in order to get some of President Trump's nominees through. By the way, as others have emphasized, these are not controversial nominees. This is like the Ambassador to the Vatican. That is about as noncontroversial as you can be. These are like not the Cabinet Secretary, not the Deputy Cabinet Secretary, but a couple positions below that. So this is obstruction for the sake of obstruction. The other thing that concerns me terribly--Roy Blunt, a former Senator from Missouri, used to say that whatever one party does to the other party, that party will do it to the other going forward, which is to say that we create precedents in this Chamber. We have always had a precedent of having a significant percentage of people who have been confirmed by voice vote or unanimous consent, as we just pointed out on this chart. But now we have to grind, grind, grind--2 hours of debate between when someone is first put up until there is a final vote. But no one in the Chamber debates; it is just that for 2 hours, you find something to do. That will set a precedent. Now, I love the Senate because I love my country. And our Founding Fathers set up the Senate to be the place where we would come--we the people, with our representatives, would come and make laws that are beneficial for our country. I grew up with this incredible esteem of the Senate, and now we are seeing the Senate ground down, where the comity, the cooperation that allowed people with different perspectives to come together and find common ground for the benefit of our country is being exploited merely to delay President Trump's agenda. The Ambassador to the Vatican-- putting a stop on his nomination and then his final approval doesn't really stop the President's agenda. So it is not just shattering precedents, it is creating new ones, establishing a pattern where next time, if Republicans are in the minority, we will, unfortunately, feel motivated to create the same gridlock that is being created here. I don't know of any American who wants that. I don't know of the most partisan American who wants that because they know that when their side is in power next time, they will want to get something done. By the way, we are talking about the Ambassador to the Vatican. This is not--this is not--the Secretary of Defense. This is not--you name the position. Now, I know my Democratic colleagues care about the institution as much as I, and I appeal to that concern. I appeal to that sense of, we have to make this place work if it is going to work for the American people, and must be careful about what we do because it will be done unto us. I suppose this could be done in the name of resistance. I would say it is resistance to the will of the American people--the American people that want the Congress, that want the Senate to function, to get on to bigger and better things, to not break precedent to set a new precedent where, in the future, we work even less well together. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the remarkable patriotism of the Pierre de Mandeville Chapter of the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution. The Daughters of the American Revolution was founded in 1890 for women who can trace their lineage back to the patriots who fought in the American War for Independence. Today, the organization boasts approximately 190,000 members and 3,000 chapters across the country. Since the chapter's founding in 2008, the Pierre de Mandeville Chapter has dedicated itself to service, historic preservation, and community initiatives. Its members devote thousands of hours each year to reading books to schoolchildren and organizing care packages for troops overseas. Next year, the Pierre de Mandeville Chapter will gather to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the United States of America. On behalf of the people of Louisiana and all Americans, I applaud the patriotism and selfless service of the Pierre de Mandeville Chapter of the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution. These women exemplify what it means to be an American. May their celebration marking the 250th anniversary of the United States be a joyous one.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, recently, there was flooding in Texas. The tragedy there is unspeakable--135 lives claimed. And you can't listen to the story of the young campers being swept away literally by the flood waters without getting emotional--26 feet of water rising in just 45 minutes. And so, for many Americans, that is hard to imagine--but for not as many as you might expect. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, nearly every parish and county in the United States has experienced flooding in the last few decades--not every State, every parish and county. No place in our country is untouched by flooding. For example, not in New York City. This is New York City--New York City, as we used to say down South. It saw its second wettest hour in history this month as rain caused what the New York Post headline described as ``terrifying, freak flash flooding.'' Not New Mexico, on the bottom of this. New Mexico, what you think of as being in the desert, saw deadly flooding this month despite its dry climate. We in Louisiana, as well as anybody, know that there is a tragedy which can result not just with the flooding but can result after the flooding, a tragedy which people cannot afford to live in their homes no matter what they do to prevent future flooding because of unaffordable flood insurance rates. I am all about preventing the first tragedy. How do we stop the initial episode of flooding? I have supported the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities, or BRIC, grants, and the administration has assured me that they are going to release those funds. I also want to prevent the second tragedy of people losing the place where they have lived, perhaps for decades--no matter what they do to prevent their homes from flooding again--not because it is destroyed, but because they cannot afford flood insurance at a reasonable rate on a property that once flooded but now the risk has been mitigated. That is why I continue to work toward a solution on the National Flood Insurance Program: Make flood insurance affordable again. Until the program is affordable for a homeowner, accountable to the taxpayer, and sustainable for future generations, Americans will, unfortunately, be forced to drop the program because they can't afford the premiums. Now FEMA aid may be available to help people repair homes after a federally declared disaster, but it often covers just a fraction of the cost. And, by the way, because of FEMA's risk rating 2.0, people whose homes have never flooded or people who have taken measures so their home will not flood again are, nonetheless, forced to pay outrageous premiums. You might think: How can a working American be expected to afford flood insurance when the price spikes so much? Or maybe you think: Well, it is expensive, but some can still afford the program. Well, we have another problem threatening the flood insurance program: It expires September 30. If we do nothing, every American enrolled in the National Flood Insurance Program, which is millions of Americans, will be without protection by the time the next flood season starts. National emergencies won't stop, the destruction will not end, the threat of flooding will not vanish, but the safety net to rebuild a life--that will go away. Now I am working on a long-term National Flood Insurance Program reauthorization and reform bill to stabilize the program, protecting taxpayers and protecting communities. When all Americans are affected, a Federal response is necessary, and I want to work with President Trump and my colleagues to make flood insurance affordable again. 20th Anniversary of Hurricane Katrina Mr. President, I want to mark the upcoming anniversary of one of the worst disasters my State and our country have ever faced: Hurricane Katrina. Twenty years ago this August, Louisiana and much of the gulf coast region suffered a devastating blow that required such a response. It is a heartbreaking anniversary. Hurricane Katrina killed hundreds of Americans, separated families, and destroyed belongings we thought would be cherished forever. The devastation was felt in every community. You may have had your home destroyed in New Orleans East, but if you lived in Shreveport or in Bossier City or in Monroe, our fellow Louisianians came there to live in the Hirsch Coliseum, the Bossier City Civic Center, to stay there, sleeping on a mat in a communal setting, walking over here to take a shower or over there to go to the bathroom, because their homes had been destroyed. In Baton Rouge, I led a group of volunteers to convert an abandoned K-Mart into an emergency surge facility for the overflow from the regular hospital. You know, because of that, looking around at the failure of government at every level, I thought, my gosh, maybe I should run for office. And I have been working to prevent another disaster on this scale ever since. Since then, Louisiana and our Nation have invested $15 billion in the levee system, and these have helped prevent flooding. There is a levee system in what we call the Bayou Region. The Bayou Region touches the Gulf of Mexico. The flood mitigation structures we built have been said to have prevented 10,000 homes from being flooded during Hurricane Ida. We know that building resiliency works. In the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, I worked to get millions in coastal resiliency grants and millions more in flood mitigation assistance grants for my State but for other States similarly affected. One example, by the way, if you fly into New Orleans and you drive towards Baton Rouge, around a city called LaPlace, there is a huge flood control structure, and you can see how the swamp has been separated and that they are building the mound of dirt in between. That is what the money is going for, to prevent these communities from being flooded again. If you go to Lake Pontchartrain, there is money to restore what is called the batture. The batture is the area between the levee and the water level. We have invested money as a Federal Government and as a State government to rebuild that batture, and in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, more money was applied. You knew it worked because one of our storms--I happened to be out there looking, and there was a wave that crashed off Lake Pontchartrain. It hit the batture, it began to crest, and it fell. As it fell, it almost hit to the top of the levee, and a few drops went over. That batture being built out kept the wave from cresting right next to the levee and that water going over and flooding everybody on the other side. Building resiliency works. It works for the Federal taxpayer, it works for the Louisiana taxpayer, and it works for the families whose lives are secure. Improving highway evacuation routes, hardening the electrical grid, and investing in flood mitigation are all things I worked for in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The reason I did it is that we can't prevent another hurricane, but we can prevent the bad things that happen afterwards. As the 20th anniversary approaches, we are reminded of those losses but also the gallantry, the true gallantry of the American people, because in the worst times, we come together. We are seeing the same reaction following the terrible flooding in Texas. In the weeks following Katrina, people from all over the world and all over the country stepped up with disaster relief. Now we see that in Texas. I am told that Florida, Kansas, Pennsylvania, California, Nebraska, Illinois, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio--I could list the States, all sent National Guard. I am sorry, that was in Louisiana. But, similarly, people from different States all went to Texas to help--Indiana, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Missouri, and it continues. When tragedy hits, Americans respond. We may not be able to take away the pain of loss--I wish we could-- but Congress can help ease the financial burden of recovery, and an essential way to do that is by making flood insurance affordable.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I want to thank the 12 Louisiana firefighters who recently left their homes and families to provide critical support for people in Texas after devastating flooding earlier this month. I am deeply grateful for their bravery, selflessness, and strength. The loss of life and property--which we in Louisiana have experienced--is a tragedy that spreads beyond State borders. But so does our commitment to help. Samuel, Turner, Gordon, Steven, Roy, Christoper, Justin, Colby, David, Austin, Chris, and Craig represent the best of our State and remind us that, in times of crisis, we are stronger when we come together. Thanks to all of you for your courage and sacrifice. You make Louisiana proud.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Mr. Radian Lawson Hennigan, CPA, who is celebrating his retirement. Mr. Hennigan grew up in a military family. After his father retired from the U.S. Army, the Hennigans settled on a family farm in Bienville Parish. Mr. Hennigan spent his teenage years raising cattle and maintaining his family's timberland. These experiences instilled in Mr. Hennigan a strong work ethic and deep commitment to serving others, which shaped his career. During his career, Mr. Hennigan developed a reputation for integrity, generosity, and dedication to his clients and hometown of Ruston, LA. In 1988, he founded Radian L. Hennigan, CPA. His accounting firm served the Ruston area and the broader Louisiana community. Through his accounting firm and other business investments, Mr. Hennigan employed over 400 individuals in the Ruston community. He also partnered with Louisiana Tech University, his alma mater, to develop a summer associate program to mentor future CPAs. Mr. Hennigan retired from Radian L. Hennigan, CPA this July after leading the firm for 37 years. During his retirement, Mr. Hennigan will enjoy the company of his wife of 47 years, three children, five grandchildren, and one great-grandchild. The work ethic, generosity, and service that Mr. Hennigan exhibited during his career are nothing short of inspiring. I ask that all of Louisiana join me in congratulating Mr. Hennigan on his distinguished career and wish him a happy retirement.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I rise to object to S. 1220, a bill seeking to transfer the burden of $230 billion in student debt to the 87 percent of Americans who chose not to go to college or already responsibly paid off their loans. To be clear, this legislation does not differentiate between those trapped with overwhelming debt and those who could easily pay back their loans. If this bill is enacted, a majority of those who borrowed money to get a bachelor's degree would not have to pay back even the principal on their loans, and 91 percent of their student debt would be eligible for reduced payments. And it would be subsidized by everybody watching on C-SPAN right now. There is no free lunch. These policies are as unfair as they are irresponsible. Where is the relief for the Louisiana truckdriver who took out a loan to buy a truck? What about the hard-working mom who paid off her student loans but now struggles to afford her mortgage? Would this legislation give those Americans relief? No, it gives them a greater burden. The truckdriver and that mom, they are on the hook for those who decided to go to college to get a degree to make more money. They would be on the hook for that, as well as their own cost of living. Now, I am sure my Democratic colleagues will argue that some of those students are trapped with overwhelming debt, and this legislation will help them get out of it. But this bill does nothing to address the broken higher education system that created the overwhelming debt in the first place. It doesn't address the rising costs at colleges and universities. And let's point out that, in the last 30 years, tuition and fees at private nonprofit colleges have risen by 75 percent. At public 4-year institutions, they have increased by 102 percent. Meanwhile, according to a nonpartisan analysis, 23 percent of bachelor's degree programs and 43 percent of master's degree programs had a negative return on investment. What does that mean? It means you spend a lot of money to get your degree, but you don't actually increase your ability to earn more money because of that degree and, along the way, you get into student loan debt. We need real solutions to fix this broken system, and Republicans provide these solutions. As chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I am leading my committee's portion of the One Big Beautiful Bill, legislation that will make transformative changes to the higher education system. First, it reforms student loan repayment plans that cost American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. This includes fixing our income-driven repayment program that is targeted to help struggling Americans. Second, it increases the affordability of higher education by eliminating inflationary loan programs that evidence shows drive higher tuition prices and cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Third, it restores accountability so that universities are not receiving Federal loan dollars for programs that leave students worse off than if they had never entered that program. And, lastly, this legislation increases access to career or technical education through establishing Workforce Pell. A young person from Louisiana who wants to be a master welder doesn't need to attend a 4- year university, but they can now use their Pell grant to attend a technical school, giving them the skills for a successful career. That is a wise investment of Federal student loan dollars. Unlike S. 1220, the legislation before us today, Senate Republicans are putting forth real solutions to address the root causes of the student loan crisis. I look forward to working with my colleagues to get the One Big Beautiful Bill across the finish line so we can fix the broken higher education system and ensure that every American can succeed. Mr. President, the Democrats' legislation is unfair to the hundreds of millions of taxpaying Americans who will be forced to bear the burden of paying off someone else's student debt. It would make our higher education problems worse, not better. And for those reasons, I object.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns in my office be granted floor privileges until June 26, 2025: Zachary Fitzgerald and Caroline Martel.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, in every single State, there are Americans relying on the National Flood Insurance Program to protect their home. It is shaded in every State. There are people who are making claims on the National Flood Insurance Program. Congress has the responsibility to serve all Americans, regardless of age, income, or ZIP Code. Since President Biden's implementation of Risk Rating 2.0, seniors and low- and middle-income homeowners have been left behind. Earlier this month, I led eight of my Republican colleagues in urging FEMA to end the Biden-era Risk Rating 2.0. I want to work with the President to fix the mess the Biden administration has created. Now, I want to share with my colleagues the same case we made in that letter for why action is needed now. Every year, on June 1, the phrase ``hoping for the best, preparing for the worst'' comes to mind. For the folks in Louisiana, it is a way of life. The hurricane season begins. With a higher gulf temperature than usual, meteorologists predict 13 to 19 named storms, 6 to 10 hurricanes, and 3 to 5 major hurricanes hitting the United States before the year's end. That is somewhere in the United States, not just the gulf coast. I will note that the meteorologists always predict a lot. It is easier to be wrong predicting a lot than to be wrong predicting very few. But, nonetheless, we should hope for the best and prepare for the worst. In my State, if there is such a warning, folks know what to do. They stock up on some nonperishable food items, they get their prescriptions renewed, they take care of their windows, they check on their neighbors, and they will also be bracing themselves financially. Folks in my State are still trying to get back on their feet after 4 years of financial distress under the Biden administration. Add the cost of recovery, if there is a severe weather event, and many families just cannot afford it. That is why we have the National Flood Insurance Program, a safety net program for millions across the country, including those in my State, for the last 50 years. Because of the National Flood Insurance Program, a retired couple in Livingston Parish who just paid off their mortgage sleeps better knowing that they are covered the next time or if they ever flood. The single working woman in Cameron Parish rests assured, knowing that there is help available when it comes time to replace the siding and roof tiles which may have been torn loose by torrential winds. But this program--and the peace of mind for those who rely on it--is threatened. Since FEMA, under the Biden administration, implemented Risk Rating 2.0, premiums have skyrocketed, making desperately needed protection unaffordable for millions. Over 80 percent of NFIP policyholders in Louisiana saw a spike in their premiums after its implementation in 2021. The protection that millions desperately need has been unaffordable. When I say ``unaffordable,'' I am not talking about a $1 or $200 increase, although that might be too much for some families. I am talking about an almost $2,000 increase for a homeowner in Waggaman, LA, and about a $4,500 increase for a homeowner in Gibson. This is where they started, in the white, and this is where they went to, in the red. So if you say ``unaffordable,'' for a family of limited means, paying almost $600 to go to $2,500 is a big jump--a 334-percent jump. To go from $600 to $5,100 is a 750-percent jump. And here in Belle Chasse, LA, it goes from $5,070 to $8,800--over a 1,400-percent increase. That is unaffordable. For a family with limited income--perhaps a fixed income--to see that kind of a jump is, one more time, unaffordable. The question is, Has FEMA been transparent about these increases? The answer is no. In fact, some of these folks have never flooded. They are not really quite sure why their premiums are rising. But because they are rising so rapidly and so much, they have no option but to drop their NFIP coverage altogether, which, of course, is the worst possible situation because, now, they are totally vulnerable. It is important to note that Congress has not been allowed to weigh in on these increases. Under President Biden, Congress was stonewalled. Now, with President Trump in charge, I trust there will be more transparency into the Risk Rating 2.0 methodology than we have had. The American people--and, certainly, those in Louisiana--made it clear when they elected President Trump that they are ready to end the confusion and high prices of the previous administration. They are talking about the grocery store, the gas pump, and, yes, also flood insurance. The National Flood Insurance Program, if you add to that homeowner's insurance, is the heart of the cost-of-living crisis Americans struggled with under President Biden. Now, we have a chance to bring down prices on flood insurance in the same way that President Trump has brought down all of these other prices--gas, eggs, milk--you name it. And I wish to work with my Senate colleagues, my congressional colleagues, and with President Trump to make life affordable again. As hurricane season ramps up, the clock is ticking. Let's act now. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns in my office be granted floor privileges until June 25, 2025: Ava O'Neal and Alan Lam.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I can proudly say that Louisiana fuels the world. That is what we say in my State, and it is true. Louisiana accounted for more than 60 percent--6-0 percent--of U.S. energy exports last year. The United States is the world's largest LNG exporter, and Louisiana has some of the largest export terminals in the world. It is a whole-of-State activity. A lot of the natural gas we export is produced in Haynesville Shale, which is in northwest Louisiana. That gas comes down to the Cameron LNG in Hackberry, LA, where President Trump went when it first opened. That one exports 12 million metric tons of LNG annually; Cheniere Energy in Cameron Parish, 30 million metric tons of LNG last year left that facility; and Venture Global in Plaquemines Parish, 27 million metric tons LNG, and they are expanding. President Trump wants to reestablish American energy dominance, and that dominance starts in my State. I can proudly say Louisiana has the infrastructure, strategic location, and, most importantly, the workers to put the United States back on top. Louisiana's ports, railroads, highways, and pipelines provide an outlet for gas and oil from landlocked States to be exported from our ports to around the world. Some oil is transported by rail, and the only place in the United States of America where six major freight railroad carriers converge is--you guessed it--my home State of Louisiana. Our fully integrated 50,000-mile pipeline network and 11,000 miles of State highways make Louisiana an obvious choice when considering which States can best transport these goods. Now, obviously, when your State has the mouth of the Mississippi, where it drains into the Gulf of America, besides our LNG exports, we have six combined deep draft ports where we are moving oil and gas and also the refined products from that oil and gas, which is part of fueling the world. So Louisiana is critical to the production and distribution of fuel and fuel products. I am making these points because reestablishing American energy dominance, ultimately, creates better jobs, higher paying jobs, which can change the trajectory of a family in my State and families elsewhere in the Nation. By the end of President Biden's term, after 4 years of attacks against American energy production, the Department of Energy reported tens of thousands of jobs lost. Tens of thousands of jobs is a statistic, but these are real people, real families we are speaking of. Think of the young couple with three kids and the husband comes home and tells his wife that he has lost his job. He would have lost his job because of some activity the Biden administration did. The wife immediately wonders how they are going to pay the house note. The husband feels humiliated. He feels as if he is letting his family down. And, suddenly, there are sparks of argument between two people who have always gotten along, and kids see conflict that there never was before. These are human stories, and those stories were relived over and over when these almost 30,000 jobs were killed. By the way, they were killed not because the fuel was not needed, but because the last administration decided they felt uncomfortable with that fuel being produced in the United States of America. Well, tens of thousands of Americans suffered under that prejudice under President Biden. The war on American energy was a war on American jobs, which is a war on American families. That war on the American family is over. I recognize, President Trump recognizes, that American energy dominance fueling our State, our country, and the world--and along with it, giving enough product for manufacturing of the refined products we all need--creates with it the high-paying jobs for Americans who never should have been out of work in the first place. We are seeing evidence of this all over. Woodside Energy recently announced the largest single foreign direct investment in Louisiana history--a $17.5 billion investment in Calcasieu Parish for a new LNG export facility. This will support 15,000 jobs during construction and, once operational, thousands more. By the way, there are other things to do with this plentiful abundant energy. There are wonderful spinoffs. Just as an aside, last month, Hyundai Steel announced a $5.8 billion investment to build a new, next-generation steel production facility in Ascension Parish. The facility is expected to generate $4.1 billion in annual revenue and bring in nearly 1,500 direct jobs to the State and thousands of indirect jobs. That is low-cost energy paving the way for more opportunity. By the way, this benefits my State, our Nation, and guess who else benefits? Our allies. Europe imports 45 percent of its LNG from the United States, but they still get about 20 percent from Russia. If we send them 45 percent of the LNG, that is a growth from before the Russian-Ukraine war when that number was only 27 percent--there is a bill before Congress many Senators are supporting that puts stricter sanctions upon Russia. I would say that if the Europeans buy even less natural gas from Russia, they will need more natural gas from us, and we have the capacity to make that up. We want to send more natural gas from Haynesville Shale through those LNG export facilities across the Atlantic Ocean, creating tax revenue for my parish governments, wealth for my workers, helps our national security, helps our economy, and helps working families. The European Union using more U.S. liquefied natural gas throws a wrench in Vladimir Putin's war machine. Last year, the EU paid 22 billion Euros for Russian natural gas and, again, Putin used that money to fund his war. Next year, if the Europeans buy that much U.S. natural gas, that is $25 billion coming to our economy. After Putin's brutal invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the United States helped Ukraine stand up against Putin, Europe did, too. Let's use our energy to do it even more so. We can help them by saying: ``Don't buy Putin's gas to fuel his war, by ours.'' Louisiana is ready to help. America has the resources, we have the abundance. Let's put it to use. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns in my office be granted floor privileges until June 12, 2025: Jude Hebert and Sophia Damalas.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Chester Pettey, who is celebrating his 100th birthday on June 17, 2025. Lieutenant Colonel Pettey dedicated 26 and a half years to the U.S. Armed Forces, starting in World War II. Over the course of his service, he rose from the rank of sergeant to lieutenant colonel, an achievement that reflects both his exceptional leadership and commitment to our Nation. Just months after joining the Army Reserves in 1943, Pettey received a letter on his 18th birthday ordering him to report to Fort Devens for training, starting what would become a long military career. From there, he served in Europe as a driver and radio operator for the commander of the 2nd Battalion in the 232nd Army Infantry Regiment, as part of the 42nd Infantry ``Rainbow'' Division. In this role, he helped liberate the Dachau concentration camp, freeing more than 30,000 prisoners who were suffering at the hands of the Nazis. Thanks to the efforts of Pettey, his fellow American soldiers, and allies across Europe, the Holocaust ended, and the Nazis were held accountable for their crimes. Pettey then served during the Korean war as an officer. He taught at the Army Engineer School before becoming a member of a ``special forces'' team that destroyed bridges behind enemy lines in Korea. Pettey later participated in the Vietnam war and then concluded his honorable service in our military. Lieutenant Colonel Pettey, I extend my deepest gratitude for your unwavering dedication to our Nation and the cause of liberty. Your century of life--marked by courage and service--stands as an example to all Americans. I ask us all to honor and celebrate the 100th birthday of Lieutenant Colonel Chester Pettey, a true American hero.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I want to congratulate John Foster, a Louisiana native and fellow LSU Tiger, on an impressive run on American Idol. John was the runner-up on this season of American Idol. And while it was not the outcome everyone in Louisiana was hoping for, he represented himself and Louisiana well on a national stage. John's performances were excellent and inspiring. He was also practicing and performing as he is pursuing pre-med. John, well done on pursuing both your dream and your education. From all of us back home, keep singing. You are first place in Louisiana.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I know you have a family legacy in Florida. You will appreciate that along the gulf coast and certainly in Louisiana, people in Louisiana are preparing for hurricanes. I just had a meeting with the Calcasieu Parish Police Jury, and they sent me some photos of some Lake Charles homes. I am saying this in the context of a discussion about flood insurance and what has happened that just seems irrational. To reduce their risk of flooding and therefore their monthly flood insurance premiums, people have paid to elevate their homes. It makes sense. If you get floodwaters, it works. And it costs anywhere from $25,000 to $40,000. If your foundation needs repair, there is another $25,000 on top of that. If you have to fully replace your foundation, that can be another $100,000. But if it lowers your flood insurance premiums, it can be a worthwhile investment. You lift your homes, and you may not flood. Here is this home, a similar home. You can see, whereas the neighbors are flooding in this one, an elevation like this prevents a flood, in this picture. That home is not flooding. Their insurance premium should go down. But after spending tens of thousands of dollars to mitigate one's risk of flooding, they are still seeing high insurance premiums. They are getting the worst of both worlds. They had to pay to elevate their home, successfully preventing flooding; despite that, they are having to pay much higher insurance premiums. Let's put up the chart of prices. Two properties. This is before they elevated their home, after they elevated their home. At first, it worked. They go from $12,000 a year to $758, from $4,500 to $751. This is an investment which would lower the cost of flood insurance, saving the National Flood Insurance Program money; therefore, it is worthwhile to raise your home. Now, however, under a new system called Risk Rating 2.0, it doesn't matter. Here, they pay tens of thousands of dollars to elevate their home, and under this new system, their premium is back up to $9,800 or to $7,300--in this case, higher than it was before they elevated their home. The percentage increase is about 1,200 percent. The percentage increase here is almost 900 percent. It does not make sense. By the way, why would you pay to elevate your home if you get the double whammy of paying to elevate and then your premiums, in some cases, are higher than when they started? These are just two examples of people who did everything right, did what they were supposed to--they are not going to flood--and yet, after Risk Rating 2.0, this is what happened. I don't know if people still say ``ripped off,'' but they feel ripped off. They feel as if they did what was right and they have been punished and penalized because the premiums almost or in some cases more than doubled relative to what happens. Now, these are nice homes, but they are not castles. These are middle-income families. The neighbor is driving a pickup truck. It looks a little bit--the Presiding Officer is a car dealer. That doesn't look like it is a 2025. It is a good truck. It is a good family. These are not wealthy families. They are good, middle-income families, spending tens of thousands of dollars to elevate their home, and yet, still, their premium continues to rise. So with Risk Rating 2.0 driving up costs for lower and middle-income families, about a fifth of those enrolled in the National Flood Insurance Program will be forced to drop their coverage over the next 10 years, OK? You raise premiums, and you raise them to a degree that 20 percent of the people--typically the lowest risk--drop their coverage. Then the Flood Insurance Program has to spread its risk over a smaller base, which means it elevates the premiums even more, and so those who need it least are the next 20 percent to drop off. This initiates what is called an actuarial death spiral. Risk Rating 2.0 is like termites eating away at the foundation of a house, and if we do nothing, the home is going to collapse. I introduced legislation in February to give low- and middle-income households enrolled in the National Flood Insurance Program a 33- percent reduction in their premium in the form of a refundable tax credit that would go straight to their premium payment at the time it is due. Hurricane season won't wait on those who need flood insurance. Americans in my State and across the country need relief now. If we really want to put Americans first, we can start by making the National Flood Insurance Program affordable now and keeping it affordable 10 to 15 years from now. It is a pocketbook issue, but when you flood, like folks in Louisiana and other States have, it becomes a personal issue. Since the start of 2025, at least 21 Americans across 8 States have died as a result of flooding and storms hitting their communities. Millions have been left without power or evacuated from their homes. And when you hear ``flood insurance''--hey, I don't live in a coastal State. I don't live in Florida or Louisiana. Why does it bother me? My home will not get destroyed. I wish that were true. This isn't a one-State problem; it is a one- nation problem. All 50 States have National Flood Insurance Program policyholders. The darker the color, the more likely the flooding. Missouri is in a dark color. New York State--minimal coastline--is in a dark color. Pennsylvania is in a dark color. This is called river ring flooding, where you have a river and it comes down like this, and people building in the valley get flooded because the river overflows its banks, and it fills up that V-shaped valley. So that is why you would see flooding. And so that is why you see flooding here in the darker--not as dark, but still dark. You have the Dakotas also having problems with flooding. So it is a 50-State problem. And in these States, there are many who don't have flood insurance, and the time will come when they wish that they did. The National Flood Insurance Program can provide certainty for individuals and for their families. Maybe you won't see flooding as extreme as losing a home. I sure hope you don't. But I am not just talking about the worst case scenario. Let's imagine going back to this picture. The family didn't get their home completely flooded. The family got 4 inches of water in their living room. Their carpets are destroyed. If their floor is anything but concrete, it is destroyed. If you have furniture in there that is cloth, it is destroyed. If you get mold, then you are going to have to rip out the sheetrock and replace wherever you had sheetrock. Two to 3 inches destroys the carpet. In fact, the most expensive 3 inches in a flood are the first 3 inches. And that is what makes flooding so difficult for a middle-income family to recover from. And for many, the National Flood Insurance Program is the only option they have. Now, by the way, the program designed to help them is failing them, and when millions of Americans are being impacted, Washington should act. Let me be clear: the National Flood Insurance Program is a Federal program, meaning that Congress and the President can change and improve it. We just need to have the will. So I urge my colleagues to join me in working with the Trump administration to end Risk Rating 2.0. In 2019, my office worked with the Trump administration to successfully delay Risk Rating 2.0 because of the lack of transparency as to how FEMA was calculating the rates. President Trump understood then and understands now that Americans are tired of being ripped off. When rivers swell, when coastlines have rising water, Americans should not have to fear the cost of rebuilding without affordable insurance. So let's make the National Flood Insurance Program affordable, accountable, and sustainable. Severe weather is relentless. We must be too. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. CASSIDY. I appreciate the ranking member's interest in addressing drug prices, and you absolutely have to lower the cost of prescription drugs. And we absolutely have to acknowledge that there is a tension. If we do not incentivize the development of new types of drugs, we condemn ourselves to continue to die from diseases for which there are currently no cures. And I say this as a guy who has practiced medicine--or graduated from med school in 1983. Let me put it that way. When I graduated from medical school, one of the most common surgeries was taking out a portion of somebody's stomach. I don't mean your belly. I mean your stomach, where the food goes down after you swallow it. This is how I talk to medical students--because of peptic ulcer disease. And there came along a medicine called cimetidine. It just changed the landscape. And we went from a surgery being most common to one which was rarely performed in 6 months. Cimetidine, which is now called Tagamet, which is now sold over the counter--just a measure of innovation, which if we had not had that innovation then, a most common surgery would still be removing a portion of somebody's stomach because of bleeding ulcers. More tragically--it is pretty tragic when you lose part of your stomach--when I was a resident in Los Angeles is when the HIV epidemic came out. And all of these men--they were all men--20 to 30, came in with something that we didn't even know what the disease was. We didn't have a way to diagnose it. So we called it the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome. And they all died. They all died. And I remember saying to one of the older physicians: Why do we even bother treating them, because they all die? But because there was an incentive for companies to come up with cures, they did it. And they stopped dying, and they began living. That doesn't happen accidentally. It happens because there is incentive to bring a drug through expensive studies to the market. By the way, I recently had a doc tell me, who treats HIV positives, that if a patient takes their medicine, they die when they are 88 of Alzheimer's or a stroke or something else, but they should not die from an AIDS-related cancer. That is the power of innovation, and that is the power of incentivizing innovation. I could go down a list of other drugs. Melanoma. When I was in med school, if you got diagnosed with melanoma, they said go fill out the will. Now I have friends who have been living for 8 years, 10 years longer taking immunotherapy for melanoma. That doesn't just happen. That happens because you incentivize innovation. So what are our diseases now for which we have no cure? Alzheimer's. I lost two parents to it. Wouldn't it be great if we had a cure for Alzheimer's? Pancreatic cancer, esophageal cancer--I could just go down the list of things for which there is no cure. But, I can tell you, with the appropriate incentive, with the research taking place, in 10 years, we will speak of those diseases as diseases of the past, as we now speak of bleeding peptic ulcer disease causing a portion of your stomach to be resected as something in the distant past. Now, by the way, I applaud my colleague. I applaud President Trump for saying that other countries are not carrying their fair share of the load for paying for this innovation. They should do it too. This is not the way to get there. But it is absolutely essential that they do. And my staff is bringing something, which I will invite my colleague from Vermont to join us on that, because it is absolutely essential that we have the innovation, that we be able to afford it. And the only way we balance those two is if other countries pay their fair share. But let's return to the measure at hand. The measure at hand sounds simple. It is simple. It won't succeed. Well, it will succeed in lowering prices temporarily, but, in the long term, it will defeat the ability to incentivize innovation. And then all drugs will be cheap because all drugs will be old. But we need new drugs, and we need the incentive, and this kills that incentive. So for that, I object.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I have 14 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Jack Clampit, Jr., who recently passed away on May 7, 2025. Jack was born on September 26, 1949, in Monroe, LA, and graduated from West Monroe High School in 1966. After graduating high school, he began his own creosote plant before helping establish two more businesses focused on selling copiers and computers. Jack was fortunate to enjoy 48 years of marriage to his loving wife Debbie Frith Clampit, a union that produced two daughters, two grandchildren, and four great- grandchildren. Jack was known in his community as a reliable friend and a strong leader. He served as vice president of the Ouachita Parish Police Jury for two terms. Along with founding the Bawcomville Redneck Christmas Parade and Crawfish Craze Barrel Race, Jack was also a member of the library board, volunteer committee for the Rivercity Longbeards, and the North Louisiana Economic Partnership. Jack Clampit, Jr.'s commitment to his community is nothing short of inspiring. His efforts made Ouachita Parish and all of our State a better place. On behalf of the people of Louisiana, I extend my heartfelt condolences to the Clampit family.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I celebrate Louise ``Sammie'' McClelland, who turned 105 years old this month on April 14. She still lives on her own and spends her days reading, swimming, and attending mass. You would hardly guess she is Jefferson Davis Parish's oldest resident. Her joy and adventurous spirit have not dimmed despite living through some of the most difficult periods in American history. During the Great Depression, Mrs. McClelland helped her family by sewing clothes, gardening, fishing, cooking, and caring for her younger siblings. Mrs. McClelland later left home to pursue a degree at LSU and, subsequently, an impressive teaching career. She served her community for 35 years as a teacher, educating the next generation of Louisiana's leaders. Now living in Elton, LA, Mrs. McClelland remains steadfast in her faith and thankful that the Lord continues to bless her with the things and people she needs to live well. Mrs. McClelland's fearlessness and hard work, combined with her deep faith in God, make her a true embodiment of what makes Louisiana so wonderful, and we could all learn from her example. When asked the secret to her long life, she replied, ``Eat right, follow God's rule, and exercise.'' What great advice.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, oh my gosh, I wish I didn't have to rise today because I rise to say goodbye but also to honor someone who has been an incredibly important member of our Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee team and, before that, in my personal office team. Amanda Lincoln is leaving Capitol Hill after 15 years of service to the Congress and to our country. Amanda joined my personal office after she had served as staff director and legislative director for the late Senator Mike Enzi. In my personal office, she was integral to advancing policies to improve the lives of all Americans, spearheading laws that increase access to generic drugs, boost domestic manufacturing of medical products, and enhance forecasting of epidemics. She also was a partner in brainstorming solutions to emerging and vexing policy challenges, like how to finance gene therapies and protect patient privacy. Now, it was interesting. When we began to work on the bipartisan infrastructure bill, I had a group of six, and there was no one of them that had been tapped as a leader. And there were just alpha males in there, and there was this and there was that. And just organically, Amanda emerged as the leader among that group. One of the young men who was on that project, with strong personality and strong intellect--and I just kind of wasn't quite sure how that would manage--and he goes: I just got to tell you, Amanda is doing a great job. I am thinking: Well, how in the heck did that happen that she emerged as the leader among all of these strong possibilities, and there was never any sort of jostling? It was just her talent, her ability to understand process and direct negotiations that, once more, organically made her the leader. She never worked before on transportation and energy, and yet transportation and energy became something in which she is expert at. So although she left my office after that--my personal office--when I became the ranking member on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I was asked: Well, who is going to be your staff director? And I remembered her ability to lead so well that I said: Let's ask Amanda Lincoln. Fortunately, she took the job. Since then, I have learned to trust her for consequential decisions that helped us on that committee chart a successful path. Now, first in the Republican minority and now as Republican chair, we have been able to pass laws enhancing research into childhood cancer and making sure students receive financial aid packages on time to choose the best affordable college option for them. We have passed legislation to address hazing incidents on college campuses, to reform Federal programs that better address Alzheimer's and autism, and to promote access to healthcare in rural areas. We passed legislation through the committee to strengthen services for American seniors, to improve public health readiness toward the next pandemic, to make sure that healthcare workers could access mental health and substance use care--if you will, those healthcare workers burned out, stressed out, sometimes to the point of suicide by things such as the COVID pandemic, they now have greater support--to help Americans caring for family members with disabilities and other challenging medical conditions. Amanda also led oversight efforts, including the recapturing of $375 million of taxpayer funds wrongfully paid. As in my personal office, Amanda led efforts to develop policy solutions to some of the most pressing issues of our time--personally, I think it is important for our country to address the potential risks and benefits that artificial intelligence pose to society, and to make sure that it is designed, developed, and deployed responsibly--also, to modernize the National Institutes of Health, ensuring we sustain our advantage in biomedical research and that Americans get innovative treatments first; to ensure that gig workers have access to portable benefits, like retirement and healthcare; to modernize HIPAA or the medical privacy framework to ensure it keeps pace with new technologies and that Americans' private health data is properly protected. Amanda has been on the ground floor of all of these ideas, helping to kick-start debate and to generate solutions that I hope to pass into law as chair of that committee. She also led the committee's efforts to swiftly confirm all of President Trump's Cabinet officials under our jurisdiction and to ensure rapid confirmation for key public health officials, like the FDA Commissioner and the NIH Director. Occasionally, I would get some phone call: How come these appointees are not advancing? I would say: That is because we have not received the paperwork. But once we got the paperwork, we took care of it. And that was Amanda's husbanding of the process. All that I have described would not have been possible without her leadership and guidance. I just thank her, and I am incredibly indebted for her loyalty, service, and steadfastness. Now, as you know, Madam President, someone who works here on the Hill--particularly if it is a ``madam,'' particularly if it is a she, particularly if it is a mom, a wife--has not only the responsibilities of being that staffer or that Senator or that Congresswoman, but she has the responsibility, as well, of being that mom and of being that spouse, that partner. Everybody sacrifices weekends, nights, precious times with family in the service of our Nation. Amanda embraces that--perhaps embraced it too much. I say, again, that this is bittersweet. Her departure is a loss for my office, but a loss for the institution of the Senate. She will be missed by all. But our loss is the gain of her husband JP and their beautiful girls, Caroline and Amelie. It has been an incredible pleasure watching Amanda grow personally and professionally. I am proud to call her not only a trusted adviser but a dear friend. I wish her well. I look forward to seeing her start a new chapter in her professional journey. Once more, I thank her for her service to this body, the Senate, and to the United States of America. I yield the floor. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.