Bill Cassidy

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes, followed by Leader Schumer for up to 3.

Mr. CASSIDY. That woman I described with a small business who has 10 employees must now make the challenging decision to absorb the new cost or consider not offering health insurance to employees or laying employees off. Interestingly, labor unions got more time to comply with the insurance mandate than others. If this is a political bill, you would expect a carve-out for political supporters. The bill requires coverage of genetic testing of human embryos, which may help inform decisions about which embryos to transfer first, but to what end? And will these tests be used to screen for life-ending conditions? I only see two limits in this bill: one, on the ability of healthcare providers to exercise their conscience rights when practicing medicine and, two, on States that wish to regulate the practice of medicine in a way that treats human embryos with the value and dignity they deserve. Republicans are so open to working with Democrats on a sincere bipartisan effort, but this is a show vote. Unfortunately, Democrats do not care about working with Republicans to protect IVF access. They wish to manufacture an issue they can campaign on. Today's vote is disingenuous. Pushing a bill that is haphazardly drafted and destined to fail does a disservice to all women who may pursue IVF treatments. I will end as I started. This seems a deceiving, disrespectful bill to misinform and scare the public and to gin up Democratic votes for November. And that is shame. Americans deserve better. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to ask that baby to come back into the spectators' Gallery. That was the sweetest noise we have heard here for quite some time. Right to Contraception Act Madam President, Senate Democrats are using their power in the majority to push an alarmist and false narrative that there is a problem accessing contraception. They proposed a bill which is more about a solution to find a problem. Today's vote is nothing more than scaring and misleading, misleading, misleading the American people. Here are the facts. Let me show this graph. There is no State or territory that bans access to birth control pills. We made this graph. Here you see all the States that ban birth control are in orange, and all of the States that allow it are in green. As you notice, every State is green. This is not an issue. Unless--unless--your candidate for President is running behind in the polls, and there is a need to make people frightened; to turn out on a false issue; to, hopefully, improve poll numbers. But misleading and scaring voters seem to be, in their mind, the only way they can get that extra support. But don't be mistaken, the bill goes way beyond protecting access to the routine use of birth control pills or other contraceptives. There are plenty of reasons why Republicans oppose this legislation. Here is what the bill actually does: It defines contraception so broadly that it likely also includes a right to a chemical abortion pill. It eviscerates conscience protections for healthcare providers, overriding the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA. In fact, if enacted, this would be a first time a law explicitly waived RFRA. Now, by the way, we are a pluralistic society. Some people are pro- life; some people are pro-choice. But we have tried to find peace on this issue. You don't find peace by eviscerating people's rights to follow their conscience, knowing that there is a provider down the street that could give the service that would be required under this law. And, finally, the bill prioritizes abortion provider Planned Parenthood, preventing States or the Federal Government from prioritizing funding for life-affirming organizations. This is not serious legislation. It bypassed the HELP Committee. Just kind of taken out, brought straight to the floor. Again, not seriously considered, rather a vehicle for political grandstanding. It is not a serious process but, rather, a political stunt designed to fearmonger and mislead the public in an attempt to sway voters in an election year. Republicans should not play along. I oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same. I also want to highlight my amendment to this flawed bill. While the bill is beyond improvement in current form, my amendment proposes to shed much needed light on another issue that has been pulled into the Democrats' political stunt of the month; that is, the fact that the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention has very little data on abortion, including on abortion survivors. If the policy preference of the other party is to promote abortion on demand, the American people deserve accurate information on this policy's effects. We were fortunate to meet a women who survived two--two--abortion attempts this week. She testified in the HELP Committee. And so as Democrats continue to push the chemical abortion pill on women, we may learn of more abortion survivors, when at-home, unsupervised abortions fail and put mothers at risk. My proposal directs the CDC to include attempted abortions as a method of delivery and collect data on abortion survivors. It would also direct the Department of Health and Human Services to refer abortion survivors to applicable Federal programs for vulnerable and newborn children. If Democrats stand behind their abortion-on-demand stance, why would they not support this policy. Nevertheless, I suspect the other party will not be interested in considering my proposal as part of this bill or any other political show vote that is scheduled in the coming weeks. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I rise to pay tribute to Lynette Fontenot, who is retiring from the Federal Emergency Management Agency after more than 18 years of service. Mrs. Fontenot began her tenure at FEMA in November of 2005, shortly after the devastating Hurricanes Katrina and Rita made landfall in Louisiana's southeast and southwest coasts, respectively. During her time at FEMA, Mrs. Fontenot has worked primarily as a congressional affairs specialist, assisting numerous Louisiana congressional offices over the years. Mrs. Fontenot's contributions extend beyond responding to congressional inquiries. She served as an effective liaison between our branches of government and assisted both House and Senate Committees and Members with coordinating meetings and visits throughout Louisiana. Mrs. Fontenot is regarded as a tremendous asset to the entire Louisiana congressional delegation. On behalf of the people of Louisiana, I extended my heartfelt thanks to Mrs. Fontenot for her dedication and selfless service to our country. I ask that all of Louisiana join me to thank and honor Mrs. Fontenot.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns in my office be granted floor privileges until June 7, 2024: Ms. Allyson Moore and Mr. Charlie Hayes.

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, hurricane season started on June 1; and although we, of course, feel that particularly in Louisiana, I will note that last year, a hurricane hit Southern California. So this is something which can happen all over our Nation, and people in Louisiana know what people in California have learned: When there is a hurricane, there can be flooding. Now, we--I say ``we'' as we in Louisiana but, hopefully, people all over--know how to prepare; but this year, unfortunately, fewer people in Louisiana and fewer people nationwide will be able to count on the National Flood Insurance Program to help them in case they do flood. The National Flood Insurance Program, or the NFIP, was created as a safety net for the most vulnerable Americans. The stereotype is that this is only for rich people who build properties on coastal islands which are bound to flood. The reality is these are working families. These are folks who have no place else to move. These are folks who have spent decades in communities that have never flooded; yet, nonetheless, they are left without the protection of the National Flood Insurance Program. The NFIP covers 4.7 million American homes, but because of the new FEMA risk assessment system, called Risk Rating 2.0, there has been an unprecedented spike in insurance premiums, making them unaffordable and causing people to drop their coverage. I speak to constituents constantly about flood insurance. I just want to, if I can, channel my constituents onto the floor of the U.S. Senate and, perhaps, through C-SPAN and, perhaps, through the Congressional Record speak to the Nation through folks who feel as if they are not being heard. I recently heard from a constituent in Larose, LA, who switched from the NFIP to a private insurance carrier because he could not afford his national flood insurance plan. Now, the private insurance plan isn't cheap--it is $2,200 a year--but he would have paid NFIP somewhere between $4,500 and $5,000 a year, and that was 2 years ago. I note that the private plan is cheaper, although it is not cheap, which suggests that maybe the National Flood Insurance Program has things built into it that aren't required to be there. By the way, his house is 6 feet above sea level, but the NFIP ignores that. The way the National Flood Insurance Program rates a home is not by how much you have elevated it above sea level but by the zone in which you live. So if you are surrounded by homes on slabs but you are elevated, you get rated just the same as they. According to his neighbors, the last time this area flooded was with Hurricane Juan in 1985, but his property did not flood. Now, this story isn't unique or uncommon. Families across Louisiana and across the country are experiencing the same situation. You will love the names in Louisiana, but here is another one. One retired couple living on Bayou Lafourche--meaning ``the fork''-- near Raceland, LA, dropped their National Flood Insurance policy because premiums rose from $500 to $2,500 annually. Some people might say: Oh, my gosh; $2,500 is just not a lot of money. For a family living in Bayou Lafourche, $2,500 is more than they can afford. Now, the premium increases are capped at 18 percent a year, but 18 percent compounded upon 18 percent compounded upon 18 percent quickly adds up. Their son lives just down the road from them, and his flood insurance is going from $500 to $6,300. Obviously, this is not sustainable for your typical homeowner. By the way, if you buy a new policy, then you are subject to the new rates right away--meaning, for example, you would be charged $6,300 off the bat, and you wouldn't start off with the lower amount and work your way up. This brings us to a family in Lockport, LA. They just bought a new home and chose not to have flood insurance because the premium would have been too unaffordable. Now, they had the option that other homeowners don't have. Most mortgages in Louisiana require home buyers to get flood insurance. So if you take a mortgage, you have got to buy it. This leads us to a business owner. He invested $1.2 million in a brandnew office building and warehouse in the town of Cut Off, LA. They are behind a levee system that has never failed, and they elevated the office 7 feet off the ground. He tells me that if he had taken a mortgage, he would have had to pay tens of thousands of dollars of combined insurance between the flood insurance and the property insurance, and it would have been more than his actual mortgage. He says: My gosh. Why would any business locate here if they could build somewhere else cheaper and with less red tape? This tells us that not only is Risk Rating 2.0 charging pretty exorbitant rates for people who have never flooded, but it is stifling communities; it is eliminating economic growth; it is making people who live there move and keeping people who would like to live there from moving to there. There is a man in Boutte, LA, who told my office his premium will increase to over $8,000 a year over the next 13 years. His flood insurance before Risk Rating 2.0 was $570. At the current rate, he will be paying more for flood insurance than his mortgage in 2 years. I have said this before on the Senate floor and will say it again: Someone who has never flooded should never be paying more for their flood insurance than they are for their mortgage. There is a constituent in Montegut, LA, who might lose his home altogether because he can't afford to keep it. He is a Korean war veteran. He and his wife are both in their eighties, and they took out a reverse mortgage on their house several years ago to help pay medical bills. They live behind a 12-foot levee, but their reverse mortgage requires them to carry flood insurance. That now costs them $6,500 a year; and that is on top of what he is paying for his homeowners insurance. If their flood insurance continues to rise, they will give up their home. And that is not right. Now I speak to my fellow legislators. We are elected to serve. If we are failing to address the issue of the National Flood Insurance Program and folks like this Korean war veteran and his wife, who are in their eighties, are driven out of their home because FEMA has decided they are going to develop a new system to assess, but that system has flaws and we don't address it, we are not doing our job. By this, by channeling these voices, I am asking that we in this body work to address these very human needs of fellow Americans. Now, some of these stories are more dramatic than others, but they all have a common theme: They didn't flood, but they can't afford their insurance. Well, if you can't afford insurance and you don't flood anyway, then you are quite likely to drop your insurance. That is too bad because what that is going to do to the National Flood Insurance Program is create what is called an actuarial death spiral. If the low- risk people who don't flood are paying such high premiums that they drop their coverage, then all the remaining risk is put upon the remaining policyholders, which means they pay more, and there are going to be some of those who will drop out because they can't afford it. It will continue to concentrate the cost of the risk upon a smaller and smaller group of people until, ultimately, no one can afford this. We are setting the program up--or at least FEMA is setting up the program--for collapse. FEMA itself forecasted that over 20 percent of policyholders will leave the program within 10 years. Now is the time for Congress to act. But I want to be clear: This is not just a Louisiana or a gulf coast issue. I opened up by speaking about a hurricane hitting Southern California. This is an issue that affects the entire country. We are seeing, just by cost, the areas that are dark are those that have had over $1 billion in claims--so the mid- Atlantic States, the Northeast, including New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, and if you go across the gulf coast, including Texas, Missouri, and all the way out to California. Now, if you went over $50 million, then those are also these other tan States. This is a nationwide issue. I am pleased to say we have a bipartisan solution. I urge my colleagues to come talk to me about the National Flood Insurance Program reauthorization and reform. These bipartisan Northeast-gulf coast, Democratic-Republican, liberal-conservative kind of perspectives that have been included in this have come up with a solution. This would make Risk Rating 2.0 transparent; it would make it affordable; and it would make it accountable. We need a way forward, because if these stories just make one thing clear, it is that doing nothing is not an option. It is that doing nothing is a disservice to fellow Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I rise to pay tribute to retired Sergeant Fred Butler, Jr., who is celebrating his 85th birthday with his family in New Orleans, LA. Mr. Butler was born on May 31, 1939, in Greensburg, LA. In 1960, Mr. Butler enlisted in the U.S. Army. During his 6 years of service, he was assigned to the 101st Airborne Division and completed an astonishing 99 parachute jumps. He also received two field promotions from General Westmoreland who commanded the American forces in the Vietnam war. Mr. Butler's legacy extends beyond his individual achievements. His service ignited a sense of duty in three of his brothers, who proudly joined the military and served alongside him during his tenure. Mr. Butler's sacrifice, courage, and unwavering commitment to our Nation is nothing short of inspiring. On behalf of the people of Louisiana and all Americans, I extended my heartfelt thanks to Mr. Butler for his selfless service and dedication to our country. May his birthday celebration be filled with joy, love, and appreciation. I ask that all of Louisiana join me to thank and honor Mr. Butler.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. I ask unanimous consent the Senate start the scheduled vote early.

Mr. CASSIDY

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

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, everyone here--everyone here--everybody in the audience, everybody watching on C-SPAN has a loved one or knows of someone whom they have loved who has either overdosed or died, actually, from an overdose of fentanyl--an incredible scourge on our society right now. Drug overdose is the leading cause of death among young adults 18 to 45, and synthetic opioids like fentanyl are 75 percent of the cause, if you will, of U.S. overdose deaths. Fentanyl continues to kill almost 200 Americans a day--200 Americans a day. Like, today, 200 Americans will die from a fentanyl overdose--an entire generation, dying. Illegal fentanyl and fentanyl-related substances are flooding into our market from the southern border in unprecedented amounts, with the bulk of it originating from a handful of manufacturers in Wuhan Province, China. By the way, you can't help but point out that this is worsened by the Biden administration's complete failure to secure the southern border. Currently, fentanyl-related substances are classified as schedule I under the Controlled Substances Act. This classification provides law enforcement with the tools necessary to combat this emergency, going after the criminals who, again, are flooding our communities with these deadly drugs. But schedule I classification expires at the end of the year, and that is less than 8 months away. Now, for years, Congress has not made this classification permanent, and every day we get closer to this deadline, we risk losing this essential law enforcement tool. If we don't act, the chemical manufacturers in China, the cartels, and the criminals who exploit our communities are emboldened, and we must not allow this to happen. That is why today I am calling on the Senate to pass the Halt All Lethal Trafficking of Fentanyl Act, or the HALT Fentanyl Act, to permanently classify fentanyl-related substances as a schedule I controlled substance. Now, the bill is not controversial. There are no poison pills. All it does is codify current law, ensuring we don't lose tools we need to confront the fentanyl epidemic. The House--with as many problems as the House has had passing legislation--passed this bill on a strong bipartisan basis last year. And the legislation removes barriers that impede the ability of researchers to conduct studies on these substances and allows for exemptions if the research provides evidence that specific analogs of fentanyl have a valid medical purpose. So we give law enforcement tools, but we also give the scientists, the medical scientists, tools to establish whether one of these analogs is worth having for medical purposes. Now, it is important to note that this week is National Police Week. We honor police officers and their service to our communities. Now, these officers are on the frontlines of the fentanyl crisis, holding criminals accountable, saving lives by preventing the spread of drugs, but at times giving drugs like Narcan to reverse an overdose. I am proud to say that we have a letter from 11 national law enforcement organizations supporting the HALT Fentanyl Act. And by passing this legislation, we will send a strong message to law enforcement: We have your back. We have your back as you battle the scourge of deadly drugs in our communities. The clock is ticking. Failure to act puts Americans in harm's way. We must pass this bill and get it to the President's desk for signature. Mr. President, now, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 467 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, recognizing that there has been an objection, I would like to point out a couple of things, though. As regards permanently scheduling fentanyl-related substances would do nothing to limit overdoses: Congress has extended fentanyl scheduling on a temporary basis multiple times, and this has led to fewer overdoses and led to the creation of fewer new fentanyl-related substances. Next, the idea that designating them all as schedule I would limit the ability of researchers to study fentanyl is just not true. There is no indication that the temporary scheduling of fentanyl analogs has stifled research. The DEA, the Drug Enforcement Agency, has approved every research study since 2018. But this bill goes further by putting a robust process in place to study fentanyl. It does not disrupt ongoing things, but it actually creates an expedited process for certain FDA studies to be done in partnership with Federal Agencies. Lastly, that somehow this would contribute to overincarceration: The bill does not permanently bar DEA or HHS from continuing to look at the risks associated with it. If something has no risk, they can establish it has no risk. Therefore, it would not lead to overincarceration. But we do know that fentanyl is a dangerous--a dangerous--substance, and if we are concerned about the overincarceration of a certain population of our society, I can guarantee you that that population, like every population, is having people dying today from fentanyl overdose; that whichever group of Americans we are speaking of, they are losing someone today from fentanyl; and that this bill would help save a life in that particular group and, most importantly, in all groups. With that, though, recognizing there is an objection, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a staffer on my team, Zoe Aguillard, who has served the people of Louisiana for 7 years, the fourth-ranking member of my office, a staffer whom I relied upon during my time in the Senate, who is now leaving for what she thinks to be greener pastures. It is always bittersweet when a staffer leaves. I had been teaching medical school for many years before coming here. You see talented younger people come on board, and you know they have a tremendous future ahead of them. So if they move on to that tremendous future, you can't cry; you must celebrate. But, nonetheless, you regret losing someone who has grown so much, both as a person, but also in her achievements and in the affection your entire family has for her. Zoe started as a scheduler, somewhat green. She quickly became the boss, making everything go on time. She had the honesty to tell me it would go even better on time if I showed up on time. But she had a real ability to speak honestly in a very tactful way to modify my behavior. Whether it was meetings with constituents, townhalls, events, speeches, she worked behind the scenes to make it happen. And, importantly, she became very sensitive to the fact that I am a family guy who would like to be home for my grandson's graduation from fourth grade and would like to spend time with my wife--all those things that are beyond scheduling and move into trying to truly understand how someone lives their life. The President of the Senate right now and all my colleagues know a scheduler and operations director makes or breaks your office. They help to squeeze the most out of every single day. And things you might find impossible, they find a way to get it done 7 days a week, every day of the year. Examples: Zoe has been key in helping to plan the Senate's National Seersucker Day. I look forward to seeing my colleague from Vermont tricked out in his Seersucker suit for this year's Seersucker Day. It looks great on TV. She helped host Thursday Lunch Groups for my Republican colleagues and many other things we have done in-State and here to benefit our State and our Nation. Whether they realize it or not, nearly every office in the Senate has worked with Zoe at some point. The difference she has made during my tenure cannot be summarized in one speech. But I don't get emotional because I will continue to work with Zoe. She is moving back to Louisiana--the State she holds in her affections--to the benefit of our State, our country, and our fellow humans. I wish her the best, and I wish her dog Louie the best. They will both be missed in our office. (The remarks of Mr. Cassidy pertaining to the introduction of S. 4329 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. CASSIDY. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I speak in support of renaming the post office in Rayville, LA, as the Luke Letlow Post Office Building in memory of a great American, Luke Letlow. Luke was a public servant, father, and husband in his short life of 41 years. He spent almost all of his adult life serving his fellow Americans. And shortly after being elected to the U.S. House of Representatives to represent the fifth district of Louisiana, he became one of over a million Americans lost to COVID during the pandemic. Now his wife, Congresswoman Julia Letlow, carries on Luke's ambition to serve the same district that he had served both as a staffer and as a chief of staff to Congressman Ralph Abraham. When you go through Rayville, you pass that post office. Handsome guy, huh? So by naming this post office--and the people who know this story--I want them to know that our State and our country values someone who desired to serve so much, but also acknowledge the tragedy and the impact COVID had upon our State, our country, and our families. This office commemorates all that. I thank House Majority Leader Steve Scalise for introducing the House companion and the whole House for passing this bill.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I speak in support of renaming the post office in Rayville, LA, as the Luke Letlow Post Office Building in memory of a great American, Luke Letlow. Luke was a public servant, father, and husband in his short life of 41 years. He spent almost all of his adult life serving his fellow Americans. And shortly after being elected to the U.S. House of Representatives to represent the fifth district of Louisiana, he became one of over a million Americans lost to COVID during the pandemic. Now his wife, Congresswoman Julia Letlow, carries on Luke's ambition to serve the same district that he had served both as a staffer and as a chief of staff to Congressman Ralph Abraham. When you go through Rayville, you pass that post office. Handsome guy, huh? So by naming this post office--and the people who know this story--I want them to know that our State and our country values someone who desired to serve so much, but also acknowledge the tragedy and the impact COVID had upon our State, our country, and our families. This office commemorates all that. I thank House Majority Leader Steve Scalise for introducing the House companion and the whole House for passing this bill.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, if there was a theme of this colloquy, it is that students and families are bearing the brunt, the consequences of this administration's botched FAFSA rollout. So let me just speak to that more broadly. First, state of play: May 1 is national college decision day, which should be just like an exciting day for the kids and the families. In my day, they used to go to the mailbox and pop open the mailbox. There is an envelope. Show it to Mom. Show it to Dad. Whoa, isn't that exciting? But that is not going to happen this time by email or by snail mail. The issue here is clearly because of the administration's botched rollout. Now, what do I mean by that? First, let's explain what FAFSA is. FAFSA is the information that a prospective student receives as to the amount of financial aid they will receive if they go to this college or that college. So they open it up, and they say ``Oh, this is how much I get to offset tuition if I go to my local State school'' or ``No, I want to go out of State. How much do I get to go there?'' They can compare those financial offer sheets and make a decision as to what is the best place for them to go financially. But that is not going to happen or if it happens, it is going to happen in a poor way. So the timeline is, last October is when FAFSA should have been ready, but the system wasn't ready, and we were told it would be ready in January. It was for about 3 or 4 days, and then it was delayed until March. Now we learn that about 30 percent of those FAFSA forms have processing data errors and have to be reprocessed, and they won't be reprocessed until after the May 1 deadline. So instead of opening up that email and learning what your financial package could be, it will be ``You will hear at a later date.'' So what are the consequences? Colleges cannot offer these students their financial package because of the processing errors. Some students will decide not to go to school because they don't know if they can afford it. Some universities will have a cash-flow problem because the students who might have gone there for enrollment will not, and so the cash-flow problem will be very real. Now, what is doubly frustrating is that the administration has been doing things they shouldn't have been doing instead of doing that which they should have done. Remember, they were supposed to have this ready in October, then in January, and then it goes down again. When it finally comes up in May, we are told that 30 percent of them will be in error, when it was supposed to be ready in October. What have they been doing in the meantime? They have been working on student loan ``forgiveness,'' which really means student loan transfer of debt from those who willingly took that student debt on-- transferring it to someone who either paid back their loan or never went to college. That is what they have been doing. By the way, we have this hotline here: Trouble with FAFSA? Go to help.senate.gov/FAFSA. We have had this up, and we have gotten some responses. Let's see. Not receiving clear instructions when able to reach a person, and the total thing was about anger about the long wait times on the phone. This is when they call the Department of Education or FAFSA, trying to get an understanding. Another person: frustration about the continued delays and the lack of communication, and then there are additional delays, which seem to be frequent. Uncertainty due to the lack of communication from the Department, and when there is information, it is not helpful. Parents are expressing concerns and anxiety about choosing the best school for their child due to the compressed decision timeline. For those who have been through the process in the past, they describe this year as ``being significantly worse.'' It is up to Congress--and this colloquy is Republicans, but I invite my Democratic colleagues to come on board and hold the administration accountable. This should not be partisan. It is about the students. It is about the parents. It is about the integrity of a process that the Department of Education is totally failing. For those watching, if you have an experience with FAFSA that you wish to report, please go there--help.senate.gov/FAFSA. I invite all my Senate colleagues to join me and the HELP Committee in terms of holding this administration accountable. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I thank Senator Brown, and I thank my colleagues. April 16, 1963. My Dear Fellow Clergymen: While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities ``unwise and untimely.'' Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms. I think I should indicate why I am here in Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which argues against ``outsiders coming in.'' I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization operating in every southern state, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. We have some eighty five affiliated organizations across the South, and one of them is the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Frequently we share staff, educational and financial resources with our affiliates. Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct action program if such were deemed necessary. We readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our promise. So I, along with several members of my staff, am here because I was invited here. I am here because I have organizational ties here. But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their ``thus saith the Lord'' far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid. Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial ``outside agitator'' idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds. You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative. In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: Collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action. We have gone through all these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good faith negotiation. Then, last September, came the opportunity to talk with leaders of Birmingham's economic community. In the course of the negotiations, certain promises were made by the merchants--for example, to remove the stores' humiliating racial signs. On the basis of these promises, the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to a moratorium on all demonstrations. As the weeks and months went by, we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise. A few signs, briefly removed, returned; the others remained. As in so many past experiences, our hopes had been blasted, and the shadow of deep disappointment settled upon us. We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community. Mindful of the difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a process of self purification. We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves: ``Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?'' ``Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?'' We decided to schedule our direct action program for the Easter season, realizing that except for Christmas, this is the main shopping period of the year. Knowing that a strong economic-withdrawal program would be the by product of direct action, we felt that this would be the best time to bring pressure to bear on the merchants for the needed change. Then it occurred to us that Birmingham's mayoral election was coming up in March, and we speedily decided to postpone action until after election day. When we discovered that the Commissioner of Public Safety, Eugene ``Bull'' Connor, had piled up enough votes to be in the run off, we decided again to postpone action until the day after the run off so that the demonstrations could not be used to cloud the issues. Like many others, we waited to see Mr. Connor defeated, and to this end we endured postponement after postponement. Having aided in this community need, we felt that our direct action program could be delayed no longer.

Mr. CASSIDY

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

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, last week, we saw terrible flooding in parts of Louisiana. Here, as the charts will show--water shouldn't be up to the bottom of a vehicle. Here you see people getting on a bus, wearing waders. So people's lives were disrupted, just like with any serious flood. Now families are turning to FEMA, the National Flood Insurance Program, to help lift them out of the hole that last week's storms have left them in. Moments like these are why people buy insurance. But what about after we have recovered and the Sun shines once more? There is increasing concern among Americans that they will not be able to afford their flood insurance for when the next storm hits. A house is the biggest purchase most people make in their lifetime. Unless you are among the wealthiest, you are taking out a mortgage to make that purchase. After you have bought your home, imagine if FEMA changes the rules and your flood insurance now costs more than that mortgage? No American should have to pay more in flood insurance than their mortgage, but that is the story I am hearing frequently from people in Louisiana. There is a cost-of-living crisis being fueled by the inflation created by this administration. Inflation is costing Louisiana families $884 more a month compared to 2021. Everywhere they turn, they are frustrated with the fact that they are paying more and getting less. When I speak to folks back home, they are not only worried about how to put food on their table but also how to pay for gas. They are worried about how they are going to be able to afford to stay in their homes and about how they can afford a good education for their children. I would like to do something about some small part of it. Congress has the power to do something about it, and that is to make flood insurance affordable. The National Flood Insurance Program was created as a safety net for the most vulnerable Americans. It covers 4.7 million American homes, but those millions of homes are at risk of losing their protection because of skyrocketing premiums caused by FEMA's new risk assessment system, Risk Rating 2.0. Let's briefly talk about the history of NFIP Risk Rating 2.0 and how we got here. FEMA introduced Risk Rating 2.0 in October of 2021. It was slated to take effect in 2022 for new policies and in 2023 for existing policyholders. Since then, Americans who rely on flood insurance have been held in a state of uncertainty. Before they were hit with that first bill, many families didn't know if their premiums would jump up; if they did, how much; and when the rate hikes would end. FEMA told us that 77 percent of policyholders would see a premium hike but refused to publicly disclose how the Agency calculates individual policy rates. So now FEMA is sending Americans a bill and won't tell them how they came up with the price. If you were the American getting that bill, you would be incredibly frustrated. You wouldn't accept it if your mechanic stuck you with a crazy bill but didn't tell you what was wrong with the car. Why should we just accept from a government Agency that same kind of model? Theoretically, the government Agency is here to serve us. Louisiana is one of the States getting hit the hardest. NFIP premiums in Louisiana are expected to go up by 234 percent, with some ZIP Codes seeing as much as an 1,100-percent increase--that is 1,100 percent. In real terms, some ZIP Codes will see an increase from around $600 to more than $8,000 annually. Couple that with the homeowner's insurance crisis. Couple that with inflation across the country. Couple that with the cost to heat your home. Couple that with the cost to go to the grocery store. It is clear why Americans feel they cannot keep their heads above water. Insurance, just like everything else, has become less affordable. When folks can't afford flood insurance, they begin to drop that coverage, and the pool of policyholders shrink. The amount of risk is then placed on a smaller number of policyholders, which increases their premiums, which makes them drop their policies, and then we enter what is called an actuarial death spiral. FEMA itself forecasted that over 20 percent of policyholders will leave the program because of higher premiums within the next 10 years. We are setting the program up for collapse and leaving Americans and American taxpayers holding the bucket. Some groups will be hit even harder than others. FEMA won't tell us how they came up with the numbers of what they expect Americans to pay, but we do know they do not factor in income or the ability to pay. There is no discount or consideration for an elderly couple who is retired and living on a fixed income, bought their home in 1957, never had it flooded, and now their insurance premiums are rising. This is a real human condition. Congress has the power to address it, and we need to step up now. If my colleagues and our friends in the House of Representatives wish to honor the people we serve, let's start with the 4.7 million policyholders being--I don't know if the word is ``mistreated''-- mishandled by the National Flood Insurance Program, certainly poorly served. I urge my colleagues to read our NFIP Reauthorization and Reform Act. Come talk to us about it. It is something which is bipartisan, which is reasonable and sensible, and which will actually address this need. Our goal is to make the National Flood Insurance Program more affordable for the homeowner, more accountable to the taxpayer, and more sustainable for society. Our bill does that, but we can only do so by working together. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Meagan Ezell, an intern in my office, be granted floor privileges until April 17, 2024.

Mr. CASSIDY

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

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, the Senate will soon vote on the Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval, hoping to overturn the Biden administration's new joint employer rule. This policy threatens the viability of the American franchise model in favor of coerced unionization. There are 800,000 franchise businesses operating in our communities. They employ over 9 million Americans. The franchise model has particularly empowered underrepresented groups in the business community, such as women and people of color. This allows them to become a successful business owner, to live the American dream, and to create an opportunity for their own family and for their employees. President Biden's new joint employer rule threatens this critical business model. It forces legal liability onto franchisers for the labor decisions of individual franchise owners despite the franchiser having no operational authority over the business's employees. Saddling franchisers with liability for thousands of franchise owners that operate as small businesses is a sure way to destroy the system of franchising. According to the International Franchise Association, when the Obama administration imposed a similar policy, small businesses lost $33 billion per year collectively due to increased liability costs. The Biden administration's policy has strong opposition from Republicans and Democrats. It is also opposed by over 100 organizations, including those representing small businesses and workers who will be severely impacted. It is not surprising that the joint employer rule is a major priority for large labor unions. It is easier for unions when they only have to negotiate with one major entity rather than with each individual small business. This allows the union to wield more influence in the collective bargaining process. President Biden promised to have the most pro-union administration in history. This priority should not be making it easier to forcibly and coercively unionize workers while undermining the business model of the establishments they work for. It should be supporting workers and increasing economic opportunity. Unfortunately, this policy does the opposite. It threatens the jobs of the over 9 million American workers employed by and earning a living from the franchise business model. I close by encouraging all my colleagues to pass this bipartisan CRA resolution and support those Americans who otherwise would not be able to own a business without the franchise model. Let's stop this harmful overreach that only hurts jobs and economic development in our communities and denies opportunities for Americans seeking a better life. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute and honor the life of Serge B. Hadji, Esq. He passed away on March 10, 2024, at his home in Athens, Greece, with his wife of 50 years, Yanna, by his side. He was 81. Serge was a devoted husband; proud father to his three boys Alexios, Philip, and Andreas; an esteemed lawyer; trustee to his alma mater, Anatolia College; mentor; and advocate for Greece, Cyprus, and the unwavering principle that the rule of law be the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy. He was so much more than that to all that were fortunate enough to know and love him. Serge's life story is a quintessential American immigration story. Serge was born in Thessaloniki, Greece, on September 25, 1942, and immigrated to the United States in 1960. He graduated college from the University of Buffalo, received a law degree from the Detroit College of Law, and obtained a masters in law from New York University Law School. He started his career with Rogers Hoge & Hills, a Park Avenue law firm, and went on to become senior counsel at TRW Inc., a Fortune 100 multinational company headquartered in Cleveland, OH. Throughout his legal career, he was a proud member and contributor to the legal community through his involvement with the American Bar Association-- Section on Antitrust Law; the Association of the Bar of the City of New York--secretary, Trademark and Unfair Competition Committee, 1977- 1980--and the International Trademark Association--member of the board, 1988-1991. He also was an adjunct professor at New York University School of Continuing Education in Law and Taxation and a lecturer at Temple University Law School in Athens, Greece. He was a member of the New York bar and was a New York lawyer through and through, maintaining his membership until he passed away. Serge was a giant in the Greek-American world. In 1974, Serge cofounded the Panhellenic (Emergency) Committee of New York, one of the grassroots committees that sprung up throughout the U.S. to fill the political vacuum in the Greek-American community following Turkey's invasion of Cyprus on July 20, 1974. From his perspective as a key participant and keen observer of the intricacies of this issue, he later edited a book chronicling this movement, ``The Rule of Law Lobby: Grassroots Mobilization and the U.S. Arms Embargo on Turkey-1974-1978.'' In addition to protesting vociferously and providing humanitarian assistance, the Greek-American community gradually coalesced into a lobby under the newly unfurled banner of the ``Rule of Law.'' ``The Rule of Law Lobby'' has been hailed as a seminal book which splendidly portrays the rise and evolution of an American lobby that greatly influenced U.S. policy in the region. Serge remained active with Greek-American issues throughout his life, largely through the American Hellenic Institute, including editing the two-volume series, ``Doing Business in Greece: A Legal and Practical Reference Service.'' Serge honorably served on the board of trustees of Anatolia College in Thessaloniki, Greece, for 50 years, since 1974, becoming the first alumnus trustee from Thessaloniki on the board. It was at Anatolia where the head of the school mentored Serge, even long after he graduated. In recognition of his mentor, in 2008, Serge edited a book documenting his mentor's legacy, ``The Morning Cometh: 45 Years with Anatolia College.'' It was through Anatolia that Serge embodied the leadership and mentorship principles passed down to him and applied his legal skills toward nonprofit governance. Serge also mentored countless new trustees, presidents, and, most important to him, graduates. A devout Greek Orthodox Christian, Serge could eruditely explain the faith's practice, iconography, and history. Serge is survived by his wife Yanna; his children Alexios, Philip, and Andreas; and his grandchildren Alexander, George, and Philip. May we all live to remember him.