John Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have eight 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: committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 5, 2025, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing and an organizational business meeting. committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 5, 2025, to vote on the committee budget resolution. committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet in open session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 5, 2025, to conduct a hearing. committee on commerce, science, and transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 5, 2025, at 10 a.m., to hold an executive session. committee on environment and public works The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 5, 2025, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a business meeting. committee on indian affairs The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 5, 2025, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct an organizational business meeting. committee on small business and entrepreneurship The Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 5, 2025, at 11:15 a.m., to conduct a business meeting. select committee on intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 5, 2025, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with me this evening is Mr. Nick Ayers, who is one of my colleagues in my office on whose judgment, counsel, and advice I rely regularly. As you know, on any given day, the halls of the Senate office buildings and the Capitol itself are teaming with people. We have a lot of visitors, which is a great thing. We have a lot of staff members, very able. We, obviously, have a hundred Senators, and we have many, many, many--did I mention many?--members of the press. And today many of those folks--not the tourists, not the members of the public, our visitors, our people who are visiting us--but some staff members, some Senators, and some members of the media have been catatonic--catatonic. They have been foaming at the mouth, and it all has to do with a simple memorandum issued by the Office of Management and Budget dealing with spending, and I want to talk about that for a few minutes and try to put it in perspective. I thought about starting my talk today off by saying: If it weren't for double standards around this place, there wouldn't be any standards at all. And, actually, that is true, but that is too cynical for the point I want to make today. The point I want to make today is that, in Congress, we are headed for a multiple-vehicle pileup--a multiple-vehicle pileup, which I will describe in a moment. And it is going to be messy, and dealing with it is going to be messy, and we have got to deal with it in accordance with the Constitution and our law, as passed by Congress. But we are also going to have to try to do some things a different way, and it is not going to be altogether pretty. Now, we can all debate--I haven't met a dummy yet in the U.S. Senate. Some people would disagree with that, but that has been my experience. Every single Member of this body is very clever, and they can get us bogged down in procedure and debate forever about how many lawyers can dance on the head of a pin. And all of that is important. I have done that myself before. But we are also dealing with reality. Did I mention we are dealing with a multiple-vehicle pileup? I remember back when President Obama was President. He repeatedly refused to enforce laws that he didn't like. When certain provisions--I remember it like it was yesterday--when certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act proved to be controversial--it was law, but some of those provisions of law that he passed were controversial. I will give you an example of a mandate that large employers provide insurance to their employees or else pay a big penalty. President Obama just unilaterally delayed implementation; said: I am not going to enforce it. Nobody went catatonic around here. Nobody started foaming at the mouth. Maybe everybody had taken their meds that day. I don't know. But there was no hue and cry, like we have heard today as a result of that OMB memorandum. I remember also when Congress took up the issue, at President Obama's suggestion, of Dreamers. Remember the DREAM Act? Congress wouldn't pass it. Dreamers are children brought to the United States of America illegally by their parents who have come here illegally. But the children are children; they don't know better. President Obama proposed the DREAM Act. Congress didn't pass it. So President Obama just ignored the law. He protected them from deportation through Executive action. It is called the 2012 Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals Program. It broke the law. Nobody around here foamed at the mouth. Nobody around here went catatonic, including but not limited to the media. I remember when President Biden did a very similar thing. He sought to preserve and fortify DACA, as we called it. And he also took a number of steps unilaterally to weaken immigration enforcement. We know that. That is why the border under President Biden was an open, bleeding wound. He didn't--he refused to follow the law. Nobody foamed at the mouth around here. Members of the press didn't become catatonic. I don't remember anyone, Democrat or Republican, calling for President Obama's impeachment after a Federal court criticized his administration for spending money unlawfully. You remember that? President Obama decided to pay subsidies to health insurers in 2014, decided to give them money. There is just one problem: Congress hadn't appropriated the money. The GOP House, the Republican-controlled House, sued him. A Federal judge ruled against President Obama. But the money was spent. I remember when the GAO concluded that the Obama Health and Human Services Department in 2016 illegally spent money--Congress didn't appropriate it--by paying insurers instead of sending the money to the Department of Treasury. Nobody around here foamed at the mouth, including members of the press. Nobody around here went catatonic. Now, I didn't come here today to debate the ``take Care'' clause of the U.S. Constitution. We are all familiar with it. The President has a constitutional duty to ``take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' That is the law. It is in our Constitution, bigger than Dallas, right there. And I believe in it. I didn't come here today to debate it. I didn't come here today to debate the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, which the courts have ruled to be constitutional, which says that Congress gets to appropriate the money and the President has to spend it. I don't want to get into all of that. But I guess my point, in light of this OMB memorandum--which I will talk about in a moment. My point is that having embraced nonenforcement when they like the results under President Biden and President Obama, my Democratic friends have very little standing--in fact, none, zero, zilch, nada--no standing to complain when President Trump employs the same legal theory for different purposes. I am not saying--I am not suggesting that we ought to follow the rule: Two wrongs don't make it right, but they do make it even. I am just gently suggesting that maybe I should have started this speech with: If it weren't for double standards around this place, there wouldn't be any standards at all. Let me say it again. I support the ``take Care'' clause in the Constitution, and I can read the law. I know a lawbook from a J.Crew catalog. I know what the Impoundment Act says, and I can read the court opinions holding that it is constitutional. Why am I talking about all this stuff? As you know, since he has been President--I don't know, a week, 10 days--President Trump has issued about a squillion Executive orders. I think it is the most Executive orders issued by a President in this short period of time, in the history of ever. I am still trying to read them. And most of his Executive orders--this is a general statement, but I think it is fairly accurate--intend, as is his right, to reverse many of the policies implemented by President Biden. I think it was yesterday that the Office of Management and Budget, under President Trump--under an Acting Director--issued a memorandum. And the memorandum went out to all Agencies of the Federal Government, and it said: Look, you have seen the President's Executive orders changing Federal policy, which he has the right to issue. So hold up spending any money--OBM said to the various Agencies--that would implement President Biden's policies as have been changed by President Trump. And OMB was very careful in its initial memorandum and in its explanation later to say: Look, we are not talking about direct payments to people. We are not talking about Medicaid. We are not talking about Medicare. We are not talking about Social Security. We are not talking about SNAP benefits. Very careful. Well, people around here, today, have been screaming like they are part of a prison riot: Oh, my God, the President is not following the law--like this had not happened before. Again, I am not saying that two wrongs don't make it right, but they do make it even. I am just trying to give you a little context for this. My good friend Senator Schumer--and he is my good friend. I went on a trip with Chuck to China. I don't want to personalize this about Chuck. Let me put it another way. Some of my Democratic friends have and some of my friends in the media have been running around like a 5-year-old in a Batman T-shirt screaming that the world is coming to an end and the Impoundment Act is being violated and the ``take Care'' clause of the Constitution has been thrown into the garbage bin, as if this sort of hesitation to spend money has never happened before in Washington, DC. Why is the Trump administration doing this? Look, I don't know. I don't talk to the Trump administration every day. People have a multitude of reasons for doing what they do. But I can see what is going on and what is going to be going on over the next 6 months to a year. Did I mention we are headed to a multiple-vehicle pileup? Here is the problem. We have to extend the tax cuts from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. We don't have a choice. Like it or hate it, if we don't extend those tax cuts when they expire shortly, taxes are going to go up $4.3 trillion on the American people--not $4.3 million, not $4.3 billion; $4.3 trillion. And 60 percent of that tax increase is going to impact middle-class and lower income Americans. And that is just a natural fact. If we don't extend those tax cuts, it is going to drive our GDP and our economy on a journey to the center of the Earth. Even my Democratic friends know those tax cuts have to be extended. But we have other things we have to do too. We are deficit spending. We are spending money around here like it was pond water, like it was ditch water. I don't want to blame it all on President Biden. But if the shoe fits, wear it, Cinderella. This is what President Biden spent. He didn't spend this from tax revenues; he borrowed it: $1.9 trillion on the American Rescue Plan; $1.2 trillion on the Green New Deal, which they called an infrastructure act; $1 trillion on the Inflation Reduction Act; the Chips Act, where we gave money to some of the biggest companies in America--Big Tech--because they said they needed it. We gave them $280 billion for semiconductor manufacturing. It was just announced yesterday: China just kicked our ass on artificial intelligence. I don't know if I can say ``ass'' on the Senate floor, but by God, I just did. They did--I don't know how else to describe it--after we spent $280 billion? This is just under President Biden--$4.380 trillion on money we didn't have. We are deficit spending every nanosecond. I don't know how many millions we have had to borrow since I have been talking. We are taking in about $4.5 trillion, give or take. We are spending about $6.5 trillion. When we deficit spend, that money doesn't fall from Heaven. We thank Heaven for it, but we have to borrow it, and we have to pay it back. And those annual deficits--daily deficits, monthly deficits--roll over into national debt, and we have $36 trillion worth of national debt. We are going to run out of digits. That is the most debt we have ever had, well over 100 percent of GDP. So we have to renew the tax cuts, which is going to cause short- term--before it stimulates the economy--short-term loss of revenue. And we have to stop the deficit spending, and we have to reduce our debt. But there is more. There is more. We have to increase defense spending because President Xi is working with President Putin, who is working with the Ayatollah in Iran. And their goal is to have Putin dominate Eastern and Central Europe, to have Iran dominate the Middle East, to have China dominate the Indo- Pacific and the South China Sea and be free to roam in Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America and South America. I don't want America to be the world's policeman, but I don't want President Xi or President Putin or the Ayatollah in Iran to be the world's policemen either. Weakness invites the wolves, and we have to start spending more money on defense. You don't have to be Einstein's cousin to figure out that all the things that I just described that we have to do in the next year to 6 months could be called competing interests--tax cuts, stop deficit spending, reduce the debt, but find more money for defense. Something has to give. All this is a long-winded way of saying we are going to have to reduce spending. We are going to have to do it. The numbers are the numbers. Since 2019, the American population has grown 2 percent. We are not having babies. Two percent--and that is after all the illegal immigration. Do you know what has happened to our budget? It has gone up 55 percent. I know we had a pandemic. We had to save the economy. Two percent growth in population and a 55-percent increase in spending. Yes, we have had inflation. We didn't have 55-percent worth of inflation. We are going to have to be able to afford tax cuts and more defense spending and to pay down deficits and to pay down debt. We are going to have to reduce spending to prepandemic levels. And that is what this OBM memorandum today, which temporarily held up the spending of some money, consistent with President Trump's Executive orders, was the first baby step toward. That is what this is all about. That is what it is all about. The world is not going to spin off its axis. Again, I support the ``take Care'' clause of the Constitution. I understand what the Impoundment Act says, but this is reality. And this is what we have to solve over the next year. And we are going to have to solve it together because the debt is $36 trillion. Our population is 355 million people. That is 102 grand per man, woman, and child, and it has increased. And we are about to extend the tax cuts and start spending more on defense. There is a lot of excitement around here about the reconciliation bill or bills. I am excited about it. You can write this down and take it home to Mama: Those reconciliation bills, which we have to pass to get through this multiple-vehicle pileup that I just described, are going to contain substantial spending cuts. They are. Because you know what? If they don't, that reconciliation bill or bills will never pass the U.S. Senate. And I know it will not pass the U.S. House of Representatives. Then we will have failed to do what we told the American people that we were going to do, which is to get the Federal Government right-sized, to put the high prices behind us by growing out of them, by stimulating the economy and increasing wages, by making energy cheaper, by paying down our debt. And that is what is going on. I hope all the folks today will go home and take off their Batman T- shirts, wash them. They are probably a little sweaty. I hope everybody will go home--those who drink, have a cocktail, take their meds, and put this all in perspective. That is what that OBM memorandum was all about. I am going to say this one final time because maybe some members of the media are listening. I am not advocating to ignore the Constitution. I am not advocating to ignore the impoundment laws of this Congress. What I am saying is: If you don't believe we are going to have to cut spending substantially in order to get out of this mess that has been created, then you shouldn't be driving it. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last week, President Biden--I wish him well--gave his farewell address to America. He said a number of things, but one in particular got my attention. He warned America about--his words, not mine--``a dangerous concentration of power in the hands of a very few ultra-wealthy people.'' President Biden went on to say: Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms, and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead. I don't know who President Biden was talking about, but I know one particular circumstance about which I am going to speak that fits his warning. Again, I don't know if the circumstance I am about to describe is what President Biden meant, but if the shoe fits, wear it, Cinderella. Let me cut to the chase. Mr. George Soros is an oligarch. He is one of the wealthiest people in the world. He is a friend of President Biden's--nothing wrong with that. In fact, President Biden just gave him I think the highest civilian honor that a President can give to a civilian--the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Mr. George Soros is buying WWL AM radio in New Orleans. Let me say that again. That may not mean much to you, Mr. President, but it means a lot to my people in Louisiana. Mr. George Soros is buying WWL AM radio in New Orleans. WWL AM radio is practically an institution in my State. It has been around since 1922--1922--over 100 years. It is a clear channel--what the communications experts call a clear channel class A station. Its transmitter output is about 50,000 watts. That is a lot, folks. That is the maximum for commercial AM stations in the United States. It is the lead station on the New Orleans Saints Radio network. It is an important station, and Mr. George Soros is buying it. What does that mean, and how did this happen? WWL is owned by a national company called Audacy. Audacy has about 220 radio stations nationwide, one of which, of course, is WWL--the second largest radio network in America. It reaches I think 45 different markets throughout our country, 165 million Americans. It is huge. Audacy borrowed too much money. They took on too much debt. They took on about $1.9 billion worth of debt, and they couldn't service that debt with their revenues. So what did they do? They did what many other corporations do when they can't service their debt: They went into what is called chapter 11 bankruptcy--not chapter 7. Chapter 7 is when they liquidate the company. Chapter 11 bankruptcy is when a company goes into bankruptcy in front of a bankruptcy judge and says: Judge, we want to get all of our creditors and debtors together and restructure our cash flow and our debt so we can come out of this bankruptcy a surviving entity. They went into chapter 11 with a bankruptcy plan. Mr. George Soros immediately pounced. Of that $1.9 billion in debt, he bought about $415 million of it; cash on the barrelhead; paid 50 cents on the dollar. One of the tenets of the reorganization was that all the current shareholders would be wiped out. The new creditors would assume equity positions in the company. I know that sounds complicated, and it can be, but really what it means is that the bondholders--one of which is Mr. Soros after he bought it, bought the $450 million worth of debt-- became a shareholder, and Mr. Soros is now the largest single shareholder in Audacy radio stations, including WWL AM in New Orleans, an institution. In America, you can't just go do this. Why is that? Because those airwaves on which WWL and the other radio stations broadcast--they don't belong to the radio stations. They belong to you and you and you and you. These airwaves--the spectrum, if you will--are owned by the American people. Years ago, we created the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC. We set it up to be in charge of the airwaves that belong to the American people to make sure that those airwaves were being used prudently by radio stations. For example, if a radio station is bought by a bunch of foreign nationals or foreign entities, the FCC has to approve it. For example, anytime a broadcast license, as is the case with Audacy, is transferred, the FCC has to approve it. So Mr. Soros's purchase of WWL Radio and the 219 other radio stations had to go before the FCC, and it did, and it went--the approval for Mr. Soros went through the FCC like green grass through a goose. It was a party-line vote. It was last September. All three Democrats--there are five people on the FCC--all three Democrats said let it go, and they short-circuited the normal process. Now, I am not an FCC expert, and I am not a communications law expert, but this has been widely reported, and I have read about it in many reports. Normally, on a deal of this size, when 220 radio stations are being transferred--their licenses--using airwaves that belong to the American people and there is a substantial percentage of foreign owners, it would take about a year to get through the FCC. The FCC would do a complete investigation. Not this time--no. This time was special. What happened was what some members of the media have called the Soros shortcut. They just got together and rammed it through. Did I mention it was like green grass through a goose--3 to 2? Now, the two Republicans on the Commission--they are screaming the whole time: Whoa, Nellie! Whoa! Whoa! Why aren't we taking this seriously? Why aren't we investigating this? Why aren't we doing our due diligence? They were outvoted 3 to 2. You know, even in a democracy, when you have the votes--you can make a porcupine like hot peppers if you have the votes. That doesn't make it right. A number of people petitioned the FCC and said: Please don't do this. One of the groups that petitioned the FCC was a group called Media Research Center. The FCC--three Democrats, two Republicans--dismissed them. But this is what the Media Research Center said--their words, not mine: There is no question that George Soros and his affiliated businesses are looking to control these radio stations to advance their particular brand of activism. The MRC urged the FCC not to create a ``special Soros shortcut'' that would circumvent their rules and allow the deal to move forward. They did it anyway. Here is what Mr. Troy A. Miller, NRB president and CEO, said. He said--his words, not mine: The fact that the FCC is apparently willing to bypass the usual protocols-- That means the normal procedures-- to get this transaction done just weeks before a presidential election-- And right after the President of the United States gave Mr. Soros the Presidential Medal of Freedom-- seriously undermines the Commission's credibility and raises warranted questions of whether administrative processes are being manipulated-- Manipulated-- to exert political [interference and] preference. Here is what one of the Republican members of the FCC, in dissent, said--Commissioner Brendan Carr, who is soon to be Chairman of the FCC now that there is a new sheriff in town. Here is what Mr. Carr said: The Commission's decision today [approving Mr. Soros's plan] is unprecedented. Never before has the Commission voted to approve the transfer of a broadcast license--let alone the transfer of broadcast licenses for over 200 radio stations across more than 40 markets--without following the requirements and procedures codified in federal law. Pass me the sick bucket. This isn't right, but they did it. Now, this is America. You are entitled to believe what you want. If it is legal, you are entitled to do what you want. And Mr. Soros is certainly entitled to his opinion. He is. I don't agree with him, but he is certainly entitled to it in America. I am not much into this cancel culture, and hopefully we have seen the end of it, but when you are acquiring radio licenses which can influence public opinion and you are doing it in part--not exclusively but in part--with foreign money, well, that is why we have the FCC. But I want to make this clear: I believe in free speech and free expression. You are not free if you can't say what you think. You are not free if you can't express yourself. Mr. Soros has that right. But here is where he stands. I want my people in Louisiana to know who is buying WWL Radio in New Orleans. Mr. Soros is a billionaire. God bless him. He made his money himself. He has poured much of his wealth into what, in my opinion, are radical causes. He is now working with his son, who I understand is a very smart young man. His name is Alex Soros. Mr. George Soros and Mr. Alex Soros hold some--how should I put this?--nonmainstream American beliefs. For example, Mr. George Soros has called the United States ``the main obstacle to a stable and just world.'' Mr. Soros believes that our country is ``the main obstacle to a stable and just world,'' not China, not Iran, not North Korea--the United States of America. Pass me the sick bucket. Mr. Soros has also said that China has--his words, not mine--that China has a ``better functioning government than the United States of America.'' Mr. Soros does not believe that the United States should have secure borders. He once called national borders an ``obstacle'' to his plan for widespread immigrant resettlement. Mr. Soros and his family, as you probably know, have spent millions and millions of dollars to elect prosecutors throughout America who believe that violent criminals are the real victims. These prosecutors believe for the most part that if a cop has to shoot a criminal, it is always the cop's fault, but if a criminal shoots a cop, it is always the gun's fault. These prosecutors whom Mr. Soros has backed with millions of dollars all believe that if you are concerned about crime, you are automatically a racist. Mr. Soros and his son Alex--Alex in particular--have called for softer sentences on violent criminals. This is what he has said--his words, not mine. Mr. Alex Soros said: But if we are serious about ending mass incarceration, we must also rethink our response to crimes that are more serious, including violent ones. Even those who have been victims of violence increasingly do not believe in long-term prison sentences. In short, Mr. Soros--both George and Alex believe that America would be better off if we had open borders. They believe that America would be better off, in my opinion--this is how I read their writings--if we ended jails and if we ran our government like the Communist Party of China. I don't agree with that, but Mr. Soros--both of them are entitled to their opinion. But my people in Louisiana are entitled to know whose opinion they are hearing on the radio, and this has not been reported once in Louisiana. Let me say it again. Mr. George Soros, through an expedited procedure--I am trying to be evenhanded here--who received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Biden and who is close to President Biden and all of my Democratic colleagues, on a 3-to-2 vote at the FCC, has been able to buy over 200 radio stations throughout America, including WWL Radio. I want my people to know about it, and I want us to make sure that it was done legally. I am not saying it wasn't done legally; I am saying that it looks funny. Not funny ha-ha--it looks weird the way this was done. It has the aroma of politics, and I hope the new FCC revisits this issue. These licenses and these airwaves do not belong to me or to the FCC or to Audacy or to WWL; they belong to you and you and you--the American people. We are supposed to make sure, through our FCC--that is why God created the FCC--that these licenses are not just given to anybody. Chagos Islands Mr. President, let me say one other thing quickly. I didn't mean to go on this long. You have heard me talk about this before, and I am going to talk about it again. This is India. This is China. Right here are the Chagos Islands-- right now owned by the United Kingdom. America, the United States of America, with your tax dollars, has a very important military base out in the Chagos Islands, on an island called Diego Garcia. Now, the United Nations, as I have said before, has said to Britain, the UK, which acquired the Chagos Islands from France--the folks at the United Nations, with their whey protein powder and man purses, say: Bad United Kingdom. Bad United Kingdom. You are a bunch of colonialists. Give it back. Give the Chagos Islands back--not ``give them back to the people of the Chagos Islands''; give them back to this island down here, Mauritius, over 1,000 miles away. Give it back to Mauritius. That is who had it when France transferred--Mauritius was a province of France when France transferred all of its ownership to Mauritius and to the Chagos Islands in the early 1800s. The new government in the United Kingdom said: Oh, we feel so guilty. We are going to give it back. We are going to give it back--and our Air Force base with it, which we use to rearm and restock our submarines in Indochina--in the Indian Ocean to combat China. This kind of stupid takes a plan, folks. This kind of stupid takes a plan. The United Kingdom said: OK. We feel guilty. We are going to give it back. We are going to give it to Mauritius, and we are going to start paying Mauritius 9 billion over 10 years. And you know who went along with it? The prior administration. Now, I have talked to President Trump about this, and I have talked to Marco Rubio about this--our esteemed new Secretary of State--and I am hoping they are going to do something about it. The United Nations has no jurisdiction over the United Kingdom or us in America, and this is our military base. And, already, if we give the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, Mauritius says they will lease to us our own base for about 9 billion pounds over 10 years. Already, China is circling Mauritius. Already, China is trying to be Mauritius' best friend. And I don't have anything against the Government of Mauritius. They are wonderful people. I understand they want the money. They want our money. They want your money. They want us to pay them for our own military base. We need to stop this deal. President Trump and Secretary Rubio need to pick up the phone and call Prime Minister Starmer in the United Kingdom and say to the Prime Minister: Mr. Prime Minister, with all due respect, stop dipping into your ketamine stash. Put down the bong. We need this military base to combat China. Don't do it. And if the President will do that and the Secretary of State will do that, I believe Mr. Starmer, who tried to ram this through the week before President Trump took office but was stopped--I believe that he will give in. I don't have anything against Mr. Starmer. I don't have anything against the people of Mauritius Island. I am sure they are all wonderful people. But our struggle with China is serious. It is as serious as four heart attacks and a stroke. And it is bone-deep, down-to-the-marrow stupid for us, because of guilt over colonialism, to bow to the wishes of the United Nations and give a military base that we built to Mauritius, which eventually will end up in the hands of the Communist Party of China. That is why I say that kind of stupid takes a plan. Southern California Wildfires Mr. President, on a final point, I want to just highlight this. The people of Mexico have sent some of their firefighters to help us in California, and I want to thank our friends in Mexico for doing that. Other countries have sent their firefighters too. But because we are proximate to Mexico, their fighters were able to get here earlier, and I just want to thank the people of Mexico for their generosity. My work here is done. I will show myself to the door. And before I do that, I will suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have four 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. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, Madam President, to the request by my colleague from Kentucky to modify--reserving the right to do that--I wanted to make a couple of points. First, the majority of the homes covered under the Flood Insurance Program are not second homes, and it is not a giveaway for millionaires. If you just come and spend some time in Louisiana and in other States that aren't even on the coast, you will see that these are working people--working men and working women. Point two, the most that you can receive--the most coverage that you can buy--under the National Flood Insurance Program is $250,000. That is it, and that is for structural damage. You can buy an extra hundred thousand dollars for contents. Point three, everybody in America is not rich who owns a home. The median--median--cost of a home in America today is $406,000. That means that half of homes cost less, but half cost way more. That is the result of a lot of factors, including, but not limited to, inflation. As I said earlier, it is one of the reasons that the average first-time home buyer in America today is no longer 28; it is 38. It just costs a lot to buy a home today. So when someone talks about a $500,000 home and somebody being rich who owns a $500,000 home, I don't think that accurately reflects reality. I just don't. No. 2, the idea to extend this only to a primary residence, I know a lot of hard-working women and men who work a day job and have also saved their money and bought rental homes that they rent out and try to build equity in to give them something to live on during retirement. These are not wealthy people. These are working women and working men. And I don't know--they are not millionaires living on the coast. That is just a jaundiced view of the Flood Insurance Program, at least in Louisiana. And I don't know why we would deny those people the right to buy two or three more rental homes to rent out and build equity in for their retirement. They are not going to be able to borrow the money to buy those homes if they can't get flood insurance. No institution will loan it to them. Finally, the point I will make--and I say this with all due respect. I just spent 4 years listening to some of my colleagues talking about the big, bad, nasty, rich people in America. You know, when I came up, success--financial success and otherwise--and, certainly, there are ways to define success other than finances. But one of the ways in America we do so--we do assign success--is financially. And I was raised in America to admire people who worked hard and saved their money and invested their money and became successful financially. I regret that we have reached the point in America--and I hope it ends under the new administration--where we just constantly go around denigrating success in America, including but not limited to financial and otherwise. And for that reason, with respect, I decline the request to modify.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, reserving the right to respectfully respond to my colleague's request for a modification, let me just say that I love Cher. I mean, I just remember Sonny and Cher when they were both on TV. Sonny was a Congressman for a while. But I think Cher is what cool looks like. I don't agree with much of her politics, but Cher is equaled in her coolness only by Nick Cage. I love Nick Cage. I just saw a movie that he did not long ago. I can't remember the name of it. But he was--typically in his movies, he plays these deeply weird characters, you know. He was a truffles hunter, and he had a pig, a special pig that would hunt for truffles, and the bad guys hurt his pig. Well, Nick hurt them. I think he ended up killing them, but before he killed them, he hurt them the entire time they were dying. It was a great movie. I love Nicolas Cage, and I appreciate Rand reminding me of it. I might go home tonight and watch a Nick Cage movie. But let me get out of la-la land and go back to reality. No. 1, I know my friend didn't mean to give you this impression, but nobody gives you flood insurance. Let me say that again. Nobody gives you flood insurance; you have to buy it. So this idea that the government is somehow giving Cher and Nick Cage and President Biden and--I don't know--who else did you mention? I don't know. Whoever else he mentioned, they don't get free insurance from the government; they have to buy it. That is point one. No. 2, the price of flood insurance under Risk Rating 2.0--boy, anybody who has bought flood insurance lately is going to see how high the prices have gone. There was a time when the program was subsidized, but it is not being subsidized anymore. In fact, a lot of people have had to drop their flood insurance because they just can't afford it anymore. It is just way too expensive. I guess point three that I would make is that 99 and 9999 tenths percent of the people who buy flood insurance in America--we are not talking about Phil Collins here. We are not talking about Cher. We are not talking about Nick Cage. We are talking about working men and working women. And this idea that we are going to cap the price of a home--I know places in America today where a $2 million home gets you virtually nothing. Go check out California. Go check out Manhattan. I mean, the housing inflation has just been dramatic. If it hadn't been, I might consider what Rand is proposing. But the truth is, and I would like the record to reflect this, what Senator Paul is proposing to do is that we gut a program that doesn't give anything to anybody. You have to buy the insurance that is not available for most people in the private sector, without which they can't buy a home because their lender won't loan them money. If you let this program expire, you are not going to only hurt working women and working men who are trying to buy a home, you are going to destroy the real estate market as well. Finally--I will say it again--I really hope we come to a time when we don't spend our time on the Senate floor denigrating success in America, trying to say: If you are rich, you are bad. You must have gotten rich because you stole the money or oppressed somebody. That is not an America I want to live in. For that reason, Madam President, respectfully, I object to the modification, even though I still do believe that Cher and Nick Cage are what cool looks like.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, as we know, our colleagues in the House of Representatives are, at the moment, trying to pass a continuing resolution to keep government open. As we also know, our government is supposed to shut down if the House and the Senate don't act tonight, I think, at midnight. Part of the efforts of our colleagues in the House would be, of course, not only to keep government open but to extend the National Flood Insurance Program, which is also scheduled to expire, I think, tonight at midnight. The National Flood Insurance Program, as I think most people know, is hardly perfect, but it is important. It is almost impossible to buy flood insurance in the private sector. Many people, unfortunately, when they buy homeowner's insurance, think their homeowner's insurance covers them for flood. It does not. Many Americans, unfortunately, found that out, for example, with the horrible flooding in Appalachia. Virtually all of our friends and neighbors in the Appalachia area and in South Carolina and Kentucky and in Florida who were victims of Hurricane Helene did not have flood insurance. I think many of them had homeowner's, but they were not covered for flood. The private sector--I don't want to overstate this--but for the most part, it is almost impossible to get flood insurance in the private sector. That is why we have a National Flood Insurance Program. The National Flood Insurance Program is not exactly a model of efficiency. Under President Biden, it has been screwed up even more. FEMA, which is in charge of our Flood Insurance Program, implemented something called Risk Rating 2.0. It has been a disaster. It is a mess. It looks like something that my beagle used to hide under my back porch. But it is better than nothing. It is better than nothing. We are going to have a new chair of our Banking Committee in the Senate, as you know, Madam President, Senator Tim Scott. Senator Scott has asked Senator Mike Rounds and I to work on trying to start over with our National Flood Insurance Program, maybe even extend to some other hazards. But Tim has asked Mike and I to try to design a brandnew program that looks like somebody designed it on purpose. And we are going to get started on that. Indeed, we have already started. But in the meantime, the current program, as bad as it is, expires tonight at midnight, and we want to continue it. What would be the result of that? It would mean that as of 12:01 tonight, the Flood Insurance Program can no longer write new policies. I don't want to scare people. If you already have flood insurance through what we call the NFIP, which is just an acronym for the national program, your policy won't expire. If it is not at its termination date, you will continue to have coverage. But you can't buy a new policy. That will have a huge impact on the real estate market in America. Many institutions will not loan money to a new homeowner or a homeowner who is trying to buy a home if they can't get flood insurance because the mortgage companies just don't want to take that risk. We have already seen, for a variety of reasons, the extraordinary increase in the price of a home in America. I was reading the other day that 10, 15, 20 years ago, the average age of a first-time home buyer in America was 28. Today, it is 38. Why are people having to wait so much longer to buy a home? It is not because they don't want to buy a home. It is because they need time to save up the money for a home. But my point is that the price of homes, for a variety of reasons--in part because of inflation--the price of a home has just risen dramatically. I don't think any of us want to do anything to make the price of a home go up even further. I want to say a word about Louisiana. We have about 5 million people who have flood insurance in our Flood Insurance Program. About 10 percent of those are in Louisiana. Those who have flood insurance in Louisiana are, for the most part--I am trying to think of a stronger way of saying it--the vast majority of the people in Louisiana who have flood insurance are working men and working women. Our coast, for example, is a working coast. Some people like to paint the picture of the National Flood Insurance Program serving multimillionaires with multimillion-dollar homes on the coast. That is not Louisiana, I can assure you. My people are working people. We don't even have a coast like some States that have those type of homes. If you travel to Grand Isle or Port Fourchon in my State, you would see that. These are middle-class Americans that depend on the National Flood Insurance Program. I worked very hard--many of us have--to try to improve the National Flood Insurance Program through the years. I have been working on it since the first day I came to the U.S. Senate. Frankly, I didn't get a lot of cooperation from leadership of the Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over the National Flood Insurance Program. I don't want to make a promise I can't keep, but our Banking Committee is going to be under new leadership, as I just said. And Senator Scott, the new chairman, has directed Senator Rounds and I to try to come up with a program that is a vast improvement over what we have. I sum up by saying, what I am going to propose to do here in a moment is to extend the status quo until September 30. It will extend the National Flood Insurance Program that we have right now, imperfect as it may be, ugly as it may be. And it is. It really does look like something my beagle used to hide under the back porch. The American people deserve better, but it is better than nothing. Without it, it will have a huge impact on the real estate market. So my bill would extend the program--no changes--until September 30, 2025. Hopefully, by then we will have a new bill to present to you, Madam President and my colleagues. And it will contain a National Flood Insurance Program that is much better than what we have right now. As if in legislative session, Madam President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 4772-- that is the bill I just talked about--and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; and I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, may we have order.

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. President. I am laughing because it was Senator Hoeven over there probably talking about you and me, Mr. President, and I just couldn't let that go unchallenged. Tribute to Paloma Chacon Mr. President, with me today is one of my able colleagues from my Senate office, Ms. Paloma Chacon. Behind my back, some of my staffers call Paloma ``Kennedy's brain.'' They think I don't know that they are saying that, but it is probably true, and I want to thank her for her good judgment, counsel, and advice. New Orleans Mass Shooting Mr. President, what I want to talk about briefly tonight breaks my heart, but it also makes me mad. But it does break my heart. On Thursday, November 21, we had another mass shooting in New Orleans--this time in the French Quarter. It happened at the corner of Iberville and Royal Streets, across from Dickie Brennan's Steakhouse. Three masked men pulled up in a car and started firing. Bystanders testified they fired about 40 rounds. One person was killed. Three others were injured. Some people, particularly back home, are probably thinking: OK. What else is new? Another mass shooting in Louisiana and in New Orleans. But this one was preventable. One of the shooters, who was arrested--his name is Nicholas Miorana. Mr. Miorana is 28 years old. He has spent most of his adult life in prison. He is, based on his record, a career criminal. He served 7 years in prison for armed robbery. He got out. Shortly thereafter, in 2023, Miorana was arrested for a bunch of things: domestic battery, child endangerment, a series of gun charges, including being a felon with a firearm. What happened next is disgusting. In January of 2024, our district attorney offered Mr. Miorana a really sweet deal. Forget about the child endangerment. Forget about the domestic battery. Forget about all the gun charges. The DA said: You can plead guilty. He said this to Mr. Miorana: You can plead guilty to attempted possession of a firearm by a felon--attempted possession of a firearm by a felon. What? Attempted possession? I don't mean to be metaphysical here or teleological, but you either possess a firearm or you don't. I don't understand the ``attempted'' possession of a firearm. Maybe it was because, had Mr. Miorana been offered a deal--take it or leave it--for possession of a firearm as opposed to attempted possession of a firearm, which I didn't even know exists, it would have carried a 5-year sentence. Obviously, Mr. Miorana took the deal, and he appeared before Judge Leon Roche in our criminal court in New Orleans. Mr. Roche gave him probation. Eight months later, while he was on probation, Mr. Miorana violated his probation, and his probation officer sought to revoke his probation. Then, 1 month later--nobody did anything about revoking his probation. So, 1 month later, Miorana was arrested for domestic abuse battery. He went back before Judge Roche. Judge Roche didn't revoke his probation. He just gave him house arrest and told him he had to wear an ankle monitor. That was in September of 2024. Then, a little bit later, Judge Roche decided to lighten even those conditions. He allowed Mr. Miorana to be free every day from 9 to 6--every day from 9 to 6-- supposedly, to go to work. Beginning on October 8, Mr. Miorana violated the judge's orders every single day--every single day for 45 days. How do we know this? He had on an ankle monitor, and the monitor company reported to the district attorney and to Judge Roche that Mr. Miorana was violating the terms of his house arrest and ankle monitoring--45 days. Do you know what the district attorney did? Do you know what Judge Roche did? Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada. I have already told you how this story ends. Allegedly--I have to say ``allegedly''--he has been arrested for it anyway. Mr. Miorana and three of his buddies put on a mask, got in a Honda, killed somebody in the French Quarter, and shot three others. Mr. Miorana was caught. Do you know how he was caught? He had on an ankle monitor. He was caught within hours. This was a system failure. I love New Orleans. I used to live in New Orleans. I earned a living in New Orleans. I met my wife in New Orleans. My son lived the first couple of years of his life in New Orleans. I love New Orleans. What did Tennessee Williams say? ``America has only three cities: New York, San Francisco, and New Orleans. Everything else,'' Tennessee Williams said, ``is Cleveland.'' Now, before my friends in Cleveland get mad at me, I didn't say it; Tennessee Williams said it. But I think what Mr. Williams was trying to convey is what an extraordinary, unique, city New Orleans is. Every other State in America would kill to have a New Orleans. Twenty million people from all over the world come to visit the city in America which is perhaps the most European city and the most diverse city in our country. And I love New Orleans. But New Orleans deserves better. I wish this hadn't happened. I wish there weren't more people in this world like Mr. Miorana. But there are some people in this world who just habitually, consistently hurt other people, and they take other people's stuff. I wish they wouldn't, but they do. I don't know why they do. If I make it to Heaven, I am going to ask. But they do, and they have got to be separated from society. And our judges and our district attorneys are not doing anybody--anybody--in New Orleans a favor by not putting those folks into jail. It breaks my heart. It also makes me mad. Turkiye Mr. President, the second thing I want to just mention briefly, and I say this gently--respectfully, but gently--to President Erdogan, the distinguished President of Turkiye: Leave the Kurds alone. Leave the Kurds alone. The Kurds, as you know, are wonderful people. There are probably 30 to 40 million Kurds throughout the world. Some we are blessed to have here in the United States. They live mostly in Turkiye, Iran, northern Iraq, and Syria. The Kurds are a distinct ethnic group. They are sort of a stateless country because they are spread all over the world. The Kurds are America's friends. It hadn't been that many years ago since ISIS was rising high. ISIS had established a caliphate in the Middle East. That is a fancy word for a country. They established their own country in the Middle East, and America and other countries beat them back. We destroyed ISIS. They are still there, but we destroyed their caliphate. The people most responsible for helping us, most responsible for destroying ISIS, were the Kurds. We lost less than 20 American lives in destroying ISIS in the Middle East. Our friends the Kurds lost over 10,000--10,000--fighting alongside of us. Over 30,000 Kurds were wounded. Without the Kurds, ISIS would still be there. Now, Mr. Erdogan, the President of Turkiye, does not like the Kurds. I am not going to go into why. He is entitled to his opinion. But, right now, Mr. Erdogan has troops and tanks and weapons marshaled on the border between Turkiye and Syria. As we know, the people in Syria finally had enough, and they overthrew Mr. Assad, their President. Predictably, Assad, who we think stole billions of dollars from the good people of Syria, is now, predictably, living in Russia. We are going to try to find his money. Mr. Assad, like his father, is a butcher. He killed tens and tens of thousands of Syrians, and many of them he hurt the entire time they were dying. To keep power and his money--a lot of which he made by dealing drugs--he used chemical weapons against his own people. And now the people in Syria are free of him. Everybody else, stay out of Syria. President Trump has already talked about it. It doesn't mean we can't offer our advice, but we all need to stay out of Syria. The defeat of Mr. Assad in Syria would not have happened but for Israel. We know that. You don't have to be a graduate of Cal Tech to know that. Israel destroyed Hezbollah, which was working with Iran, which was working with Russia to keep Assad in power. Russia and Iran and Hezbollah were on the side of the butcher. But Russia is tied up in Ukraine. Hezbollah was holding down the fort while Russia was tied up in Ukraine. And Israel ignored the advice of many and just went out and destroyed Hezbollah. Thank you, Israel. But that is why the people of Syria today are free, and they are entitled to self-determination. Mr. Erdogan in Turkiye, I worry, is going to invade Syria. I am not accusing him of anything, but I worry that he is because we have intelligence that he has many soldiers and many tanks and much equipment and many weapons right now stationed on the border between Turkiye and Syria. And our Kurd friends are afraid that Mr. Erdogan, because of his hatred for the Kurds, is going to attack now. The Kurds live very peacefully in northeast Syria. My message today is: President Erdogan, I don't want to mess in the affairs of your country, but don't do it. Leave the Kurds alone. Leave the people of Syria alone. Turkiye has problems now. Turkiye is supposed to be our friend. Turkiye is a member of NATO. Lately, they haven't been acting like our friend. Turkiye has its own problems. If we think interest rates are high in America, they are close to 50 percent in Turkiye. Some people think they are in a recession. Their inflation is between 40 and 50 percent. If you invade Syria and touch a hair on the head of the Kurds, I am going to ask this U.S. Congress to do something, and our sanctions are not going to help the economy of Turkiye. I don't want to do that. Leave the Kurds alone. My work here is done. I will show myself to the door, and I will suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with me today are two of my colleagues from my Senate office, Mr. John Lowery and Mr. Jackson Bewley. I am grateful for their good judgment, counsel, and advice. I am delighted to see so many Members of Congress--and I mean this sincerely--so many Members of Congress embrace the call for a less wasteful Federal Government, for a more efficient Federal Government. We spend a little over $6 trillion a year, as Senator Sanders so eloquently pointed out. When you spend $6 trillion a year, somebody is getting $6 trillion a year. Every penny in our budget has a constituency, and that constituency will fight us. They will fight us. And I recognize that, and it is something that as we go about downsizing government, we have to be mindful of. However, there is one constituency that is not going to be able to fight us in our quest to scrutinize Federal spending, and I am referring to dead people, and that is what I want to talk about today. I want to talk about dead people and the fact that they are getting money from the Federal Government. In fiscal year 2023 alone--this is just 1 year--our government sent $1.3 billion--not $1.3 million--we sent $1.3 billion in checks to dead people. Those aren't my numbers. Those numbers come from the Office of Management and Budget. That is just 1 year. Not only is the Federal Government sending checks to dead people, those checks are being cashed. Now, I have heard of dead people voting, but cashing the checks? You don't have to be God's perfect idiot to realize that there is fraud happening with respect to all this money. Here is how this problem arises. When you die in America, your name is sent to the vital records office in your State. And at that point, the Social Security Administration pays each State to give an ongoing list of deceased Americans in that State. So far, so good. The Social Security Administration takes this down, this list of deceased people, and they compile on an ongoing basis a list called the Death Master File. The Death Master File. That is just a list of everybody, updated daily, of people in the United States who are deceased. Why does the Social Security Administration do this? Well, so the SSA, the Social Security Administration, can stop sending people who have died checks. So far, so good. There is just one problem. I discovered this about 7 years ago. The Social Security Administration refuses to share that list with anybody else in the Federal Government. They won't share it with any other Federal Agencies, many of which send out checks. The Department of the Treasury, for example, sends out checks. SSA won't share the information with them. The Small Business Administration sends out a lot of checks. The Social Security Administration has a list of all deceased Americans, but SSA will not share that information with the SBA. I will give you some examples. You remember when we were in the coronavirus crisis, and we had an economic meltdown. We sent stimulus checks to Americans to try to keep the economy on its feet. We paid $1.4 billion to dead people, and they cashed the checks. The Paycheck Protection Program, which was a part of our stimulus program, paid out $38 million in loans to dead people. These were people who were using--live people, obviously--who were using dead people's Social Security numbers to collect payments. The COVID-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loans fund--another culprit-- was involved in sending checks to dead people. The Department of Veterans Affairs--and I am not blaming them. In many respects, it is not their fault. A couple of years ago, a scam artist stole the Social Security number of a deceased person--a deceased veteran--and received about $825,000 in checks from 1997 to 2024. Now, the person committing this fraud was just quietly accepting the checks. Somehow, the Department of Veterans Affairs, for some reason, stopped sending that person the checks. So the fraudster just picked up the phone and called the Department of Veterans Affairs, impersonated the dead person, and convinced them to start sending the checks again. Again, it was not necessarily the fault of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA didn't know that the Social Security number belonged to a deceased person. Another example: A person in Ohio was able to collect her deceased mother's Veterans Affairs benefits for 48 years--48 years. Of course, she was caught. The truth is, it is sort of like being asked: You didn't go fishing on Saturday; how many fish do you think you didn't catch? We don't know how much money we are sending out every year to dead people. Let me give you an example of how screwed up the data is. This is a strong indicator of what is wrong. The Social Security Administration, if you asked them, will tell you that there are, according to their records, 6.5 million Americans living today in America who are 112 years of age or older. They say there are 6.5 million Americans who are at least 112 years old or older. Now, I don't know about you, but I don't know anybody who is 112 years old. And I checked. At any given time, there are about 40 people on an ongoing basis in the world who are fortunate enough to live to be 112. The data is so screwed up. According to SSA, 6.5 million people are 112 years old. A number of years ago--7 years ago--I started working with Senator Tom Carper, a fine American if there ever was one. I started working with Tom on this issue. I went to Social Security, and I said: Look, this problem is easily solved. Just share the Death Master File with other Agencies and especially share it with the Department of the Treasury. I don't want to confuse anyone, but the Department of the Treasury has a ``Do Not Pay'' list of people who aren't supposed to receive checks for a variety of reasons that other Agencies consult. But I said to my friends at Social Security: Why don't you just give the Death Master File to other Agencies? They said: We can't. It is illegal. The way we construe our enabling statutes, we don't have the authority. Well, I said, OK, I am not going to argue with them; we will just go pass a law. It was harder than I thought. But we did. In 2020, Senator Carper and I passed a bill. The bill was called Stopping Improper Payments to Deceased People Act, and it gave the Social Security Administration permission and, indeed, directed the Social Security Administration to start sharing its list of dead people with other Agencies in the Federal Government. I don't want to get down in the weeds, but--believe it or not--we had people oppose the legislation, and many people within the Federal Government. So in order to get our bill passed, we had to compromise. We had to agree to only implement this requirement that Social Security share the list of dead people with everybody else--we could only get them to agree to do it for 3 years, in a trial program. This clock started ticking on our 3-year period in December of 2023. So, obviously, 3 years is right upon us. And if we don't make this program permanent, it is going to expire in 2026. So Senator Carper and I have introduced another bill. It does basically the same thing as the 2020 bill, but it makes the program permanent. This new bill is called Ending Improper Payments to Deceased People Act, and we need to pass it. There has been a lot of squabbling back and forth. I don't want to do anything to step on too many toes to jeopardize my bill, about how much the States are going to be paid and who is going to pay Social Security for sharing their dead persons list with the rest of the government. I think we have a lot of it worked out. But we need to go pass this bill. I mean, this makes no sense whatsoever. I can understand if we talk about changing the Medicaid Program, for example--what is fair, what is unfair. I can understand debating that, and I can understand reasonable people disagreeing over what changes, if any, we ought to make to the Medicaid Program. I get it. I just listened to Senator Sanders, once again, speak very eloquently about the waste at the Department of Defense. That is something that reasonable people, all of whom agree that we ought to have a strong defense--but reasonable people--can disagree over how to achieve that. But, my God, you don't have to be Euclid to figure out that this is just fraud. It is abuse. It is low-hanging fruit, and it is so easily solved. All we have to do is direct the Social Security Administration, on a permanent basis--not a 3-year trial basis, on a permanent basis-- to start sharing the list of dead people with the Department of the Treasury and everybody else in the Federal Government who wants it. And then everybody is on the same page, and we know who is deceased. And we can stop sending the money to dead people who cash the checks. Now, I am talking about this now--I have talked about it before on the floor. I am not going to try to pass the bill this year. I am not. We are running up against a clock, and we have the NDAA. We have a CR to pass, and we have to keep government open. We have to renew the flood insurance program. And you know all that. But I am going to be back. I am like ``The Terminator.'' I will be back as soon as the new Congress is sworn in. Many of my colleagues have said to me: You know, it is time we stop talking about who needs to pay more in taxes and start talking about and asking the question with respect to ``What the hell happened to the money?'' And I agree with that. I can't think of an easier place to start. Let's just pass this simple bill. Let's stop sending money to dead people. Again, we can debate about the wisdom of dead people voting. We all know it happens. But cashing checks is a bridge too far. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I am going to try not to use my full time, Madam President. It has become in vogue in Washington to talk about government waste, and I am glad. I think that is a good thing. It has become in vogue to talk about inefficiencies and reducing spending, and I think that is a good thing. I remember when I first got here back in 2017, one of my early Appropriations Committee meetings. I was green as a gourd. We had just passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. I thought to myself, you know, we are going to run some deficits for a while because we just cut taxes. And there was an item in the budget for, I think, a 3- or 4-percent automatic pay raise for our Federal employees. They get it every year. I am not saying they don't deserve it. A lot of people deserve more money. I never heard anybody around this place stand up and say: I have a bad idea, and I need money for it. It is always a great idea. So I am not begrudging Federal employees. But I told my colleagues: You know, if we are going to run deficits, maybe we ought to skip the pay raise this year. And I made a motion. I remember some of my colleagues looked at me like I had a sexually transmitted disease or something. I mean, I made this motion, and I didn't think it was that big a deal. I got--I don't know how many members on the Appropriations Committee there are--35, 40. I got two votes. Everybody else suddenly had an important message on their phone. So I learned a good lesson. I like to say my mother didn't raise a fool, and if she did, it was one of my brothers. But I was a fool then. But I am glad things have changed, and I hope we follow through. Now, government waste takes many forms. But I will tell you one form. It is the purest form. It is when the Federal Government has taxpayer money and it doesn't belong to the Federal Government, but the Federal Government refuses to give it back. And that is the case we have in the Department of Treasury. I don't want to be too hard on my friends at Treasury because they have come around. It has taken 8 years, but they have come around. The Department of Treasury is holding 95 million--not 950,000--95 million unredeemed and fully matured savings bonds. I will explain what that means in a second. The value is $38 billion. Now, there are only 335 million Americans. So this is probably not realistic, but if one unredeemed bond--if you assess one unredeemed bond to one individual American, that is 30 percent of our country. What is a matured, unredeemed savings bond? A savings bond, as you probably know, is just a loan to the government. That is all it is. You want to invest your money, and you want to help the government. Say you want to--in World War II, we sold a lot of bonds to help pay for World War II. You say, give money to the government, and over a long period of time--usually 20 or 30 years, sometimes 10 to 15--at the end, you will get back money, plus interest. It is not like a regular bond where you get quarterly interest payments. You give your money to the Federal Government. The Federal Government takes your name and address. You get a piece of paper. And at the end of however long of a bond you buy--say, 20 years--you get back your principal, plus interest. A good example is--there are all types of savings bonds, and I don't want to get too far down in the weeds. But let's take an EE U.S. savings bond. Suppose I buy one. I go to the Federal Government, I give the Federal Government $200. They take my name; they take my address; they give me a sheet of paper. They used to give you an actual bond. They don't do that anymore. I say, great, I just invested 200 bucks. In 20 years, I can go back to the Federal Government, and they will give me 400 bucks--my original 200 bucks, plus the interest. It is a great deal. It used to be parents would buy savings bonds for their children. And during World War II, the government financed part of the war selling savings bonds. There is just one problem with this scenario. I have known this for a long time. The Federal Government has 95 million--$38 billion worth of savings bonds over at Treasury. They have the names, and they have the addresses of all of these people. And the people who are owed that money, many of them are dead. But when those bonds matured, they didn't come get their money. You say: Well, that is OK. If you gave them $200, it will just keep earning interest. No, it won't. It becomes interest- free. If I buy a 20-year bond, at the end of 20 years, if I don't come get my principal and my interest, I don't get any extra interest. For a long time, the Department of Treasury has had the names of these 95 million people or their heirs, and it totals $38 billion. So, naive as I was, I went to the Department of Treasury and said: We need to give this money back to people. What is the problem? You have got names. You have got addresses. After a while, you didn't have to be Einstein's cousin to figure out they weren't going to cooperate. Now, finally, I got--I want to give him full credit--I got Secretary Mnuchin's attention. I mean, I understand Steve was busy. It wasn't a priority. But he directed his people to cooperate with me, and some of them did, and some of them didn't. Then President Trump got defeated, and Secretary Yellen came in. Secretary Yellen--she tried to help, but multiple people opposed my idea. So I finally just went and passed a bill. I passed the Unclaimed Savings Bond Act--and I want to thank President Biden for signing it-- directing Treasury to give people's money back. I mean, how hard can this be? Well, after I passed the law, I went to see the folks over there, and they said: Well, there is a problem we didn't tell you about. All of these records, these names and addresses, are in storage, and they have to be digitized. They are just a mess, OK. They have to be digitized. I said: OK. I went and got money put in the budget to digitize the records, and we have done that. About 97 percent of them have been digitized. Then Treasury said: You know, it is not really our job to go look for people. We can put up a toll-free number. I said: Here is what we will do. I want you to cooperate with the States. Every State has an unclaimed property program. What is unclaimed property? When a business or government--supposed to be the case--has your money and they can't find you, they can't keep it. If you go rent an apartment, for example, and put down a $1,000 deposit and you move, that apartment owner is not supposed to keep your $1,000. That apartment owner is supposed to turn it over to the State treasurer and the--all State treasurers do a wonderful job. They put your name on a website, and people can go and look it up and see if they have money. Every State has an unclaimed property program. I mean, it is old bank accounts; it is stocks; it is bonds; it is mutual funds; it is royalties, royalty payments; it is health insurance proceeds; it is old tax refunds. Every treasurer--you can go to their website and put in your name or a friend's name and check to see if they have money. When I was State treasurer, I had a program--it is a long story--when I was State treasurer and even before then, when I was a State tax collector, we returned about $400 million to people in Louisiana. So there is an infrastructure set up. Treasury doesn't have to do a thing--not a damn thing. Again, I want to give Secretary Mnuchin and Secretary Yellen full credit because they have been great, but it has been hard to get some of their people up off their ice-cold, lazy butts. But we passed the law, we got the records digitized, and my purpose of being here today is to try to tell folks after 8 years, we are--this summer, in about 6 months, we are going to take all those digital records, names and addresses, and they are going to be sent to the State treasurer in every State. The State treasurers are anxious to put names and addresses on their websites. They already publicized their programs. They are going to encourage their people to go to their State's website, and if they have an unredeemed, matured savings bond or, more likely, their mom or dad did or even their grandmother and they can prove that they are the child or the grandchild, as the case may be, they can get the money. They can get the money. I know some folks at Treasury are upset about me. They loved having $38 billion of taxpayer money sitting there on the books that they can use. But it is not right. You can call it waste if you want to. You can call it inefficiency if you want to. I don't care what you call it--it is not right. So, this summer, I will be back to tell you when we turn the program on, but we are going to send 95 million names out to every State treasury in the Union, and they are going to start giving this money back. I hope all people have to do is go to a website and check their name, and the treasurer will take it from there. I want to thank Secretary Yellen and I want to thank Secretary Mnuchin for working with me on this. I want to thank President Biden, and I want to thank President Trump. I want to thank the people at Treasury who cooperated. I am sorry those who made it so difficult did, but we finally got it done. So thank you. I think I did that quicker than 30 minutes. With that, I either yield to Senator Durbin--well, he doesn't want to speak. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, Senator Welch is my friend, and he is very eloquent. I just listened to his eloquent remarks in support of Senator Sanders' resolution. And Senator Sanders is my friend, but he is wrong. He is wrong. Senator Welch talked, as he should have, about the right thing to do. The right thing to do and the smart thing to do is not to pass Senator Sanders' resolution. I don't know why this is--if I make it to heaven, I am going to ask-- but there is some people in this world, they are not mixed up, they are not confused, they are not sick, it is not that their mama or daddy didn't love them enough--they are just bad people. And they hurt other people, and they take other people's stuff. Why? Because they can. And some of them are running countries, and they hate America. They hate Americans. They want to kill us and drink our blood out of a boot. That is just a fact. Now, you do not have to be Einstein's cousin to see what is going on in the world. President Xi in China is working with President Putin in Russia who is working with the Ayatollah in Iran. Sometimes they allow Kim Jong Un from North Korea to come along, but mostly as a mascot to get them coffee. President Xi is running the show, but that doesn't mean that President Putin of Russia and especially the Ayatollah in Iran are not right there by his side. And what is their objective? Their objective is to have Russia dominate Central and Eastern Europe. Their objective is to have China dominate the Indo-Pacific--about which I will speak in a moment--and to have China dominate Sub-Saharan Africa and to have China have the ability to roam free in South America. And their objective is to have Iran--the Ayatollah--dominate the Middle East, which it has done until Israel decided to fight back, which it has done through Hamas and Hezbollah and the Houthis rebels. Now that is just a fact. And one of our best friends in the world--maybe, on some days, our only friend in the world--Israel--patient people, principled people but realistic people--they have decided to stand up to Iran. And in standing up to Iran, we are finding out very quickly they are also standing up to China and Russia. But I will save that subject for another day. They have decided to stand up to Iran. They have beaten Hamas in Gaza. They are beating Hezbollah in Lebanon. They had to do it despite the obstacles thrown up against them every step of the way by President Biden and Vice President Harris. And if we support them, Israel will beat the Ayatollah in Iran. Israel will cause a regime change. Because I can tell you, the people of Iran--not its leadership--the people of Iran are fed up with their leadership. We have a duty--not a legal duty, a moral duty--to support our friend Israel. We have agreed to do it. But besides that, we have a moral duty to do it. And my friend Senator Sanders' resolution would turn our back on one of the few friends that I think America--real friends that America has in the world. And it would precipitate a foreign policy crisis. I don't say these words very often, but we ought to listen to the words of my friend Senator Schumer. He is going to vote against Senator Sanders' resolution. Senator Schumer is right. Even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then. Senator Schumer is right: We need to defeat this resolution. It will precipitate a foreign policy crisis. And it is not the only one we would have in the world. I want to talk for just a few minutes about another crisis that is going on quietly as we speak. This is the Indian Ocean, as the Presiding Officer well knows, one of the most important parts of the world. Here is China; here is India. China is trying to dominate all of these sea lands for military reasons and for commercial reasons. Here in the middle of the Indian Ocean is a group of islands called the Chagos Islands. You may not have heard of them; I hadn't before I was alerted of this crisis. America has a military base in the Chagos Islands. There are about 40 to 60 islands. One of the islands is called Diego Garcia. And we built a military base there. And it is not just any military base. It is an extraordinarily important military base. Our military base is one of the few in the world where our military can reload submarines--hugely important. Our military base on Diego Garcia in the Chagos Islands houses a number of Navy ships. Our military base there houses long-range bombers that we use to carry out missions around the world. Now, we have to--we and the United Kingdom--I will explain why the UK is involved in a moment--we have to work hard every day to police our military base, not just the base itself, but the land--or, rather--the water surrounding it, because China--China knows how important this military base is to the security of the world. China is constantly sending craft trying to spy on our military base there. And we and the United Kingdom--again, I will explain in a second the United Kingdom's relevance--are constantly having to patrol and fight off the espionage of China. In fact, China has breached the security of American military bases over 100 times in the last few years. They are very aggressive. Now, why am I talking about this military base? Because President Biden and Vice President Harris, as we are all working here trying-- like a bunch of ants on a sugar bowl, trying to wrap up our work for the year, President Biden and Vice President Harris are giving away this military base. They are giving it away. The Chagos Islands is a territory of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom gave America permission to build our military base here. Now, the Chagos Islands has a rich history. It has a relationship with another island in the Indian Ocean, Mauritius. And I mention that because to understand what is going on, you have to understand the relationship. Mauritius and the Chagos Islands used to be partners. The Chagos Islands were what is called a dependency of Mauritius. And Mauritius, many, many years ago, beginning in 1715, was a colony of France. And while Mauritius was a colony of France, Mauritius established a relationship with the Chagos Islands. And then, beginning in 1814, France said: Look, we are going to cede Mauritius and now the Chagos Islands--where we have our military base-- to the United Kingdom. And they did. Mauritius and the Chagos Islands, 250 years ago, they might have been close, but they are not today. They don't share the same culture. They don't speak the same language. They don't visit each other. In fact, many of the people from Chagos lived in the United Kingdom. But here is what President Biden is doing and Vice President Harris. They say we need to grant independence to the Chagos Islands but not let the people of the Chagos Islands run their country. We need to give the Chagos Islands back to Mauritius. Why? I mean, no offense, but that is cell-deep stupid. Why? Mauritius and the Chagos Islands don't have a relationship anymore, and we have a military base there. I will tell you why. The United Nations--the United Nations, and particularly the International Court of Justice, which has no jurisdiction over the United States of America and has no jurisdiction over the United Kingdom and which currently controls the Chagos Islands, they have scolded the United Kingdom. They said the United Kingdom is a colonizer, and the United Kingdom, the people of the United Kingdom are bad people. Now, remember, this is coming from the United Nations. This is the same United Nations that has the following countries on its human rights council: Somalia, Iraq, Venezuela, China. That is who thinks we ought to get rid of this military base. OK? I mean, this is not some act of justice here. But in any event, the United Nations is saying: United Kingdom, you bad people, give the Chagos Islands back--but not let the Chagos Islands be free; they want to give the Chagos Islands back to Mauritius. And President Biden could stop it and so could Vice President Harris. But they are for it, all in an effort to curry favor with the people at the United Nations who walk around with their NPR tote bags and their organic broccoli and have great relationships with members of the media who they think write history. Why on God's green Earth would we do that? Why? China, of course, is delighted. Why is China delighted? Now, the United Nations says: OK, we don't want to be too mean-spirited here; America can keep its military base for 99 years, but you have to sign a lease. And we got to start paying Mauritius to stay there. China says: Fine. That sounds good to us. Why? Because, No. 1, China has already started currying favor with Mauritius, and No. 2, Mauritius will now be in charge of the security of the Chagos Islands and our military base and the water surrounding it. China, Xi Jinping, he is as happy as a gopher in soft dirt. He will be hacking the Mauritius security as soon as the trade is made. Now, President Trump, I hope you are listening to this. My good friend Senator Rubio, soon-to-be Secretary of State, I hope you are listening to what I am talking about. What we are debating today is important. I don't mean to say that. And I am not kidding you. I am not going to bubble wrap it. If Senator Sanders' resolution passes, it will precipitate a foreign policy crisis. But this foreign policy crisis is being perpetrated--or prosecuted right now, and it is another foreign policy crisis, and it is going on all because President Biden--all because President Biden and Vice President Harris want to appease the United Nations and China. President Trump, please, pretty please with sugar on top, pick up the phone and call the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and say: Don't sign that treaty. Don't give away the Chagos Islands. Don't give away America's military base. Don't do it. If we object, they won't. If we don't say anything, they will. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following intern from my office be granted floor privileges until November 21, 2024: Jameson Sheehan.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. I will buy her a pony too. Let me go to plan B. What I will do is, I want to hit ``pause'' because I don't want to do this behind Ron's back. Let me hit ``pause,'' and I will ask that we go into a quorum call. When Ron gets here, I will ask to be recognized so I can assert my motion, and Ron can agree with my splendid bill, and then we will go pick out a pony. So I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, my friend Senator Wyden is here, so I would like to proceed. I am sorry he missed my speech. It would have given him goosebumps if he had been here to listen to it. But maybe you all can tell him about it, and I hope he will find it convincing. In the meantime, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 8292, which is the bill I talked about passed by the House almost unanimously, which was received from the House. They couldn't hear me? Let me start over. All right. Madam President, I am sorry. I didn't have my mic on. The Presiding Officer recognized my request that we suspend the quorum call?

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, Senator Wyden is here. I thank him for coming out. I hope he heard my speech. I hope he was persuaded. I know him to be a reasonable man, so I took my best shot. So I am going to go ahead and make my motion now that he is here. Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 8292. That is the bill I talked about that was passed almost unanimously by the House. That bill has been received from the House. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I thank my friend Ron for his point of view. I hope we can sit down and talk about this and perhaps work something out because this bill is not about changing the tax rate; it is just about everybody's tax return is their own business. I also thank, Madam President, your courtesy and time and attention in this matter. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Three quick points, Madam President: No. 1, I rise, first, to thank the Bloomberg Foundation. I had made notes from which I was going to speak, but I lost them. So I am going to kind of wing it here. Over the past couple of years, the Bloomberg Foundation has spent millions of dollars--I want to say the figure is $30 to $40 million--to try to help really smart kids from low-income families access some of our finest colleges in the country. And America does have the best system of higher education in the world, by the way. We have the best quality colleges. What the Bloomberg Foundation was focusing on was that these were just really smart kids from low-income families who had great grades and great standardized test scores and great extracurricular activities, but many of them just didn't know about the opportunities that were out there in the world for them. The Bloomberg Foundation wasn't concentrating on race or gender or sexuality or a part of the country or any of those things. They were just looking to try to help really smart young women and young men in high school with great grades and great standardized test scores access some of the finest universities in the country. And they spent 40 million bucks doing it, working with some other groups. Well, it didn't work out like they thought. They just didn't have as much success as they wanted to. But they learned from the experience. What they learned was, in order to reach these young people, you can't just text them. You can't just call them. You can't send them an email--in part, because today, when all of us receive emails and text messages from people who we don't know, we automatically assume it is some kind of scam. So that is what Bloomberg and its contractors found--that people, including our young people, they are just very suspicious, and so they weren't able to reach that many kids. And those that they didn't reach--and by the way, the folks from Bloomberg contacting them would never meet the kids. They wanted to reach as many kids as they could, so they were doing it digitally. They just found out it wasn't that effective. But they also learned that the way to reach these kids is to see them in person and, in part, go through the kids' high schools' guidance counselors and placement offices. So I am hoping that Bloomberg is going to start again. I am not saying that Bloomberg had no success. They had success, but it just wasn't as much success as we all wanted. But, by God, they tried, and they deserve thanks. This wasn't any taxpayer money; it was the money of the Bloomberg foundation. They tried, and they learned a lot from it, and I wanted to thank them for trying. I hope they won't give up, and I hope they will use what they learned to try to reach these young people again.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, with me today is one of my colleagues from my office, Mr. Henson Webre, whom I thank for giving so much to our State and our country.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following people, who are my colleagues from my office for the summer, be granted floor privileges until August 2, 2024, and I am going to read their names. They are Kelly Weinstock, Zane Jones, Grayson Noles, Thomas Rhymes, Brooklyn Hemphill, Camryn Runyan, and Tim Breslin.