John Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Senator Hirono from the great State of Hawaii or Senator Schumer? Are you seeking recognition, or are you just waving at each other?

Mr. KENNEDY. Of course. I just work here. I am not management.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am back again to try to keep the National Flood Insurance Program from expiring. I will be the first to concede that America needs a national flood insurance program that looks like we designed it on purpose. What we have now does not look like that. To call it imperfect is an understatement. But the only thing worse than having what we have right now is to not have a national flood insurance program at all. The fact of the matter is, for all practical purposes, people who are at risk for flooding cannot buy flood insurance from the private markets, which means they can't buy a home, which means their mortgages would be foreclosed upon. That is why we have a National Flood Insurance Program. Should we improve it? Yes. I have been trying for 7 years. We need to keep trying. But we are not going to get it done over the next couple of days. I believe government is going to shut down tomorrow--or at least Saturday, rather. I hope not, but I believe it is. And if it does, the National Flood Insurance Program will be shut down. I don't want to scare people half to death. It doesn't mean that FEMA will stop--which runs the NFIP--will stop paying claims, but it will stop commerce, if nothing else, because FEMA can't issue new policies. And, again, I realize it is not perfect. But we are in hurricane season. Let me say that again. We are in hurricane season. Is this important to my State? You bet. But it is not just important to my State; it is important to every single coastal State. And that is why I would like to see us extend this program for a very, very short period of time. My bill is a clean extension. It doesn't make any changes to the program. I wish I had the authority to make changes, but I don't. This bill will just extend what we have now, imperfect as it may be--and Lord knows it is imperfect--through December 31, 2023. That will give us some additional time to design a program that looks like somebody designed it on purpose. Mr. President, for that reason, I ask unanimous consent--did I mention, Mr. President, that my State is in the middle of hurricane season? Let me say that again--and so is every coastal State. And we are going to shut down the National Flood Insurance Program in the middle of hurricane season, the U.S. Senate? What planet did we just parachute in from? For that reason, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill, S. 2968, which is at the desk; I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed--and passed--and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President. Maybe the homes that my good friend Senator Paul is describing are homes in Kentucky, but they are not homes in Louisiana. The homes in Louisiana that need flood insurance are not mansions. These are homes of working people. These are modest homes being paid for by people who get up every day, go to work, obey the law, pay their taxes, and try to do the right thing by their kids. I don't know about the millionaires that Senator Paul is talking about. Again, maybe they are in Kentucky. But they are not in Louisiana. My coast is a working coast. Point 2: What Senator Paul proposes is to limit flood insurance to $250,000. The median sales price of a home in America today is $430,300. Now, there are a lot of reasons for that. One of the reasons for that is President Biden's inflation. But those are the facts. In Louisville, KY, the median sales price is $271,000. In Dallas, TX, it is $389,000. In Miami, it is $605,000. Why do you want to fool the American people? Why do you want to ``reform'' a flood insurance program that is going to deny flood insurance? Do some people own second homes? Yes. I thought Republicans weren't supposed to penalize success in America. I thought our position was that if you worked hard and accumulated wealth, first, you should get to keep most of it. Why? Because you earned it. And second, we should applaud success in America. If you earn enough to buy a second home, we shouldn't discourage that. The third reason I cannot agree to my friend Senator Paul's suggestion is because he knows as well as I do that many of us have worked together to try to reform the Flood Insurance Program. We haven't reached consensus yet. We are going to keep working. But if I agree to Senator Paul's suggestion today, both he and I will be selling out our colleagues who would not agree to these changes, and they are not here right now. The easy thing for me to do is to accept the Senator's proposal, but I don't play that way. I am not going to do it without giving every Member of this Senate who would like input into Senator Paul's suggestions the chance to object as well. I don't play that way. For that reason, I object.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague Senator Paul and his comments. I, like him, would like to continue to work with our colleagues to reform this program. But when reality calls, you shouldn't hang up, and that is what we have done here today, because this government is going to shut down. I hope I am wrong--God, I hope I am wrong--but I think this government is going to shut down midnight Sunday night, and the National Flood Insurance Program is going to shut down with it, right smack dab in the middle of hurricane season. I thought the first role of government--I thought this is what Republicans believe; I thought this is what Libertarians believe--the first role of government is to protect people and property. And all the U.S. Senate has done today is expose ordinary Americans--not millionaires; ordinary Americans--who live in modest homes, who get up every day--I am going to say it again--and go to work and obey the law and pay their taxes and try to do the right thing by their kids and whose home is their biggest asset. We are going to tell them: It is OK. Even though you can't buy the flood insurance from a private provider, the government is going to stop you from buying it from the National Flood Insurance Program right in the middle of hurricane season. That is not what this country is all about. All my bill would have done--and I will be back. Just like the Terminator, I will be back. All my bill would do would be to take the current program--the current program, I will concede--I agree with Senator Paul--the current program looks like somebody knocked over a urine sample. It is that bad. But we need to work to improve it. But in the meantime, we do not need to allow it to expire. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I grew up in a wonderful small town in Louisiana called Zachary. Now, today, Zachary is a city. It is five times larger than in the days I spent there growing up because Zachary, a number of years ago, got very serious about improving elementary and secondary education. The Presiding Officer knows something about that. So Zachary is much larger today, and if anyone ever doubts that growth and economic development is centered around quality public education, all you have to do is look at Zachary. But when I grew up in Zachary, it was very small--one stoplight. We were so small, we didn't have a town drunk; several people had to take turns. But I loved it. I loved Zachary High School. You know, some people did not like high school. I am not one of them. I cared about two things: basketball and cheerleaders. And I wasn't very good at either one, but I had fun trying. I also loved baseball, in part because my dad, my late father, was a baseball fan. And I was an OK fielder in baseball, but I had to quit the sport because I couldn't hit a curve. I was OK with the fastball, but I couldn't hit a curve. And I remember my coach telling me: Kennedy, keep your eye on the ball, OK? Keep your eye on the ball. And I tried, but I just couldn't do it. My purpose in rising today is to suggest that we should keep our eye on the ball. We are faced with many difficult issues in the Senate today. We always are, but I think that is especially true today. My colleague Senator Cornyn just talked about one: immigration. Of course, the war in Ukraine is on everyone's mind. And I could go on and on and on. But I don't want my colleagues to forget about one of the most important issues of all facing the American people today, and that is the cost of living in our extraordinary country--inflation. In my State, the median household income for a family of four is about $55,000. That means half of our families make more and half of our families make less. But the mean is $55,000 for a family of four. As a result of President Biden's inflation--and, as an aside, I would note, I say this with no joy whatsoever--inflation in America today is manmade, and that man's name is President Joe Biden. In my State, where the mean household income is $55,000, the average American family is paying $800 a month more--a month; not a year, a month more--to live in this wonderful country as a result of Bidenomics. That is $9,600 a year that a family of four making $55,000 a year has to find. And my people, they have maxed out their credit cards, and they have spent their savings. And they borrowed money, and they have had to take money out of their children's 529 college savings program. It is strangling my people. It is not any better in other States. I looked at the numbers this morning. What we call overall inflation right now is about 3.7 percent. Core inflation, if you take out food and energy prices, as many of the economists like to do, is 4.3 percent. So 3.7 percent overall, 4.3 percent if you take out food and energy. Now, we are doing better. A year ago, those numbers were double. And I am so pleased that inflation has fallen just a bit, but I want you to understand what that means. Falling inflation just means that prices--they are still rising, but they are not rising as fast as they were. Let me say that again. Falling inflation just means prices are still going up every month, every day, but they are not going up as fast as they were. We call that disinflation. Falling inflation also means that prices overall are not going down. That is deflation. My point is, even though inflation is falling--and I am so glad it is--all that means is that prices are not going up as fast as they were. And we are going to be stuck with these high prices. They are going to be permanent, even if inflation goes to zero. What does that mean? Well, let's look at basic goods. Even if inflation goes to zero tomorrow, since February of 2021, electricity is up 24 percent. We are stuck with that. When inflation falls, electricity is not going to go back down to where it was. We are going to continue to pay 24 percent more. And gas--in Louisiana, gas is up 71 percent. We are stuck with that, even if inflation falls to zero. Eggs are up 28 percent; potato chips are up 28 percent; bread, 28 percent--permanent--coffee, 30 percent; rice, 28 percent; flour, 29 percent; milk, 17 percent; ice cream, 20 percent; chicken, per pound, 24 percent. And that is why the American people, in large part, are struggling so economically. You should not have to sell blood plasma in America, the wealthiest country in all of human history, in order to go to the grocery store. It is not any worse, our inflation--which I am afraid these high prices, as I said, are going to be permanent. It is not any better if you look at necessities by category. All goods--as a result of President Biden's inflation, starting in February of 2021 and running through today, all goods are up an average of 17 percent. How many American families have seen their income go up 17 percent? Not many. Food--all food, average--an average--is 19 percent. Housing is up 16 percent. Clothing is up 10 percent. Used cars and trucks are up 32 percent. And even if we can get inflation down to zero, we are going to be stuck with those prices. New cars are up 20 percent. Mortgage rates are up 161 percent. Let me end as I began. We have a lot of issues that we are struggling with right now, but among the five things that moms and dads in America worry about when they lie down to sleep at night and can't is the cost of living in our wonderful country. And these are the people who made this extraordinary country. America is not great because of the Federal Government. America is great because of ordinary people doing extraordinary things--people who just get up every day, go to work, obey the law, pay their taxes, and try to do the right thing by their kids. President Biden's inflation is strangling a free people. The American people deserve better. And I don't want us to lose sight of that fact as we grapple with other important issues. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 2391 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. Madam President, will it be in order for me to explain S. 2391?

Mr. KENNEDY. I withdraw my unanimous consent request.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, in a few moments, I am going reassert my unanimous consent; but, first, I wanted to tell you why I rise today in our Senate. It has to do with flood insurance. The National Flood Insurance Program, which is administered by FEMA, is going to expire in 17 days, September 30. About 5 million Americans depend on national flood insurance, as you know. Up until recently, private insurers would not provide flood insurance. The Federal Government, for that reason, decided a number of years ago to implement its own program, and it is administered by FEMA. The National Flood Insurance Program is far from perfect. I don't want to give the impression that I think that somehow it is a model of efficiency because it is not, especially after its implementation of risk rating 2.0. Having said that, it is an economic--``it'' meaning the Federal flood insurance program--it is an economic and commercial necessity. It is almost impossible to buy a home in an area that has the potential of flooding--which is everywhere now--without ever being able to get flood insurance. My bill is a simple bill. It does nothing but extend the Federal flood insurance program, which, again, is about to expire on September 30, in 17 days. All my bill does is extend it, as is, by 1 year through September 30, 2024. If there is a threat--and there obviously is--the government is going to shut down, I do not want to risk allowing the NFIP to expire during hurricane season, which we happen to be in. I mentioned 5 million Americans depend on flood insurance. Well, 500,000 of those Americans are in my State of Louisiana. What would happen if we allow the NFIP, the National Flood Insurance Program, to expire? Well, for one thing, the NFIP would be prohibited from issuing new policies during that period of time, which would shut down commerce and the real estate business. Existing NFIP policies--I don't want to scare anyone. If, for some reason, the flood insurance program expires, existing policies are still in effect until their expiration date and claims will continue to be paid as long as FEMA has money. However, the Federal requirement that you have to purchase flood insurance under certain circumstances to get a mortgage would be suspended, which means many mortgage companies would not loan money to homeowners. If we allow the NFIP to expire, the National Flood Insurance Program would not be able to borrow money from Treasury. Their authority to borrow money would be reduced from the current $30 billion to about $1 billion, which is not much money, as you know, Madam President, to recover from a national disaster. The National Association of Realtors has suggested that during the lapse of the NFIP--about 13 years ago, we allowed it to expire. At that time, just in my State alone, about 1,400 residential home sale closings had to be canceled. Let me say it again. I know the flood insurance program is not perfect. I will be the first to say that. I will lead the parade. A lot of work needs to be done on it, but the only thing worse than what we have is nothing. It will shut down commerce in terms of real estate in this country. And in 17 days, September 30 of this year, the National Flood Insurance Program expires. All my bill does is one thing: It extends it 1 year. For that reason, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 2391, which is my bill, 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. Madam President, I appreciate Senator Lee's remarks. I know he has concerns, as well he should. I am sorry. I will start over. Madam President, I appreciate Senator Lee's remarks. His objection does disappoint me; but I appreciate his remarks, and I share his concern about reforming the Federal replenishment program. It doesn't look like someone designed it on purpose. It should look like someone designed it on purpose. It should be reformed. There aren't 60 votes right now to reform the program, and we don't have time to do it in the next 17 days. We could, if our majority leader would vacate all other business on the floor and we worked like most Americans work, but you and I both know that is not likely to happen. As imperfect as the program is, I will be back to reurge this unanimous consent. This is the worst possible time to allow our National Flood Insurance Program to expire for my State, imperfect as it is, because we are right in the middle of hurricane season. I also want to point out, as I told Senator Lee before, I am certainly willing to discuss with him putting a cap on the amount of insurance offered. And I will tell you why. A mischaracterization--that is probably the wrong word. A characterization that is irrelevant to my State with respect to flood insurance is as follows: that flood insurance just benefits a lot of multimillionaires who live on the coast and could afford, frankly, to even be uninsured. And that may be true in some States. Certainly, if it is true, I am certainly not denigrating the folks who were successful enough to be able to buy a beach home. My only point is that is not true of Louisiana. Insurance of 500,000 people who rely on flood insurance in my State are just like you and me. They just get up every day. They go to work. They obey the law. They pay their taxes. They try to save a little bit for retirement, and they try to do the right things by their kids. They are not millionaires. They are working women and working men. They have to have this insurance. I just wanted to make that point for the record. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, a word about NATO. For the past 18 months, the United States and our NATO allies have worked together to support our Ukrainian friends as they push back against Russian President Vladimir Putin's violent attack on their sovereignty. Putin's war in Ukraine is illegal, and it has presented one of the most serious challenges that NATO--the North Atlantic Treaty Organization--has faced in decades. As with many challenges in life, I believe that the difficulties we face today can make NATO stronger tomorrow. I believe that. But that will only happen if we are honest with each other. Friends tell friends the truth. Friends tell friends the truth. Here is the truth as I see it: NATO is one of the most impactful defense PACs in all of human history. The United States is a proud NATO member. The American people support NATO. But it is also no secret that some of our friends in NATO have not been taking their own defense and defense spending seriously, and they had not been taking their own defense and defense spending seriously even before Vladimir Putin began his illegal assault on Ukraine. As the full extent of Putin's cruelty unfolded last year, NATO leaders--they appeared at first to regard it as a wake-up call, and that is a good thing. It was a wake-up call for many people throughout the world. But sometime, somehow, over the past year, those same countries fell back asleep. You see, when Putin began his march into Ukraine, key NATO leaders said that they would start spending 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense. That is a promise that they had made before but had reneged on until Putin's assault. But it took less than a year after Putin entered Ukraine for those same leaders to begin to renege again, and that is just a fact. Friends tell friends the truth. Recent analysis shows that as of today, just 11 out of the 31 countries currently in NATO are on track to fulfill their 2 percent defense spending obligation. Now, this is becoming a frustrating pattern for some of our NATO allies. As a smart person once said, history doesn't repeat itself, but sometimes it rhymes, and that is the case here. If you take a look at NATO today and compare it to NATO in 2014, it, frankly, would make Michael Avenatti blush. Let me paint the picture for you. NATO countries first agreed to spend 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense in 2006. The 2 percent figure was designed, as the Presiding Officer knows, to be a floor, not a ceiling. And this didn't mean--this promise made by all NATO countries in 2006--this didn't mean that each country was required to cut a check to NATO. That is not what it meant. It just meant that each country would spend 2 percent of its gross domestic product on itself--on itself--in its own military and in its own national security. Why? Because all NATO countries understood then that our alliance was stronger when everyone pulled their weight. Now, we know a lot of what has happened since then. The world economy sank into a recession in 2008. We all felt the brunt of that, including the American people. But for some of our friends in NATO, that 2 percent commitment fell apart. After the great recession, as we call it, just three NATO members--three--fulfilled their promise to invest 2 percent or more in defense. Do you know who took note? Vladimir Putin. In 2014--fast-forward a few years--Putin invaded Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula. Putin made it clear that he intended to take that key block of land on the Black Sea and make it his own, and he did. This was a blatant violation of Ukrainian sovereignty. It was an unmistakable foreshadowing as well of what would come. Now, Putin's aggression outraged NATO. It should have. It outraged all fairminded, freedom-loving people. At a conference that year, 2014, in Wales, each member country of NATO reaffirmed their commitment to spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense by 2024. At the time, President Obama was President. In a speech at the conference in Wales where each country pledged to spend 2 percent--the second time it made the pledge--President Obama said: [T]his commitment makes clear that NATO will not be complacent. I remember when the President said that. President Obama also said: Our Alliance will reverse the decline in defense spending and rise to meet the challenges that we face in the 21st century. He later added: Here in Wales, we also sent a strong message to Russia that actions have consequences. Well, that turned out to be debatable. By 2021, just a few years later, only seven NATO members were spending the minimum 2 percent on defense, and that is just a fact. Friends tell friends the truth. In fact, President Trump was met with scorn when he asked our friends in NATO to keep their word and reinvest in defense. Germany's Foreign Minister, Heiko Maas, said: Our common response today to the President of the United States and his assertion of ``America First'' must be ``Europe United.'' Apparently, Germany and others felt that upholding their pledge to spend 2 percent on their own defense was somehow an ``America First'' policy. And do you know who took note? Vladimir Putin. Flash-forward to 2022. Putin's tanks are rolling farther into Ukraine. And just like in 2014, our NATO friends issued statements a third time once again pledging to spend 2 percent of their gross domestic product on their own security. Yet, today, despite Putin's ongoing attack on Ukraine, today, some of our friends in NATO have already stopped or postponed their 2 percent spending plans, and that is just a fact. Friends tell friends the truth. French President Macron, for example, promised to increase France's defense spending in the days following Putin's invasion. I remember when he made that promise. But French officials have also announced that it will take until 2025 to hit the 2 percent defense spending threshold. Similarly, Italy announced it would not hit 2 percent until 2028. Spain said it won't hit its 2 percent goal until 2029. Belgium said it won't hit its 2 percent goal until 2035. The war is going on. To be fair, Belgium and Spain, both good friends of America, have made some small progress in their defense spending over the past year. I want to make that clear. They may come through eventually. But France's spending has hardly changed at all, and Italy will actually spend less on defense this year, in the middle of the war which is happening in Europe, than it did in 2021, before Putin even entered Ukraine. Germany's failure to follow through on its 2 percent commitment is especially disappointing and consequential. As the world's fourth largest economy--Germany is the world's fourth largest economy behind only the United States of America, China, and Japan, the world's fourth largest economy. So Germany's defense spending shortfall, and it is a shortfall, leaves a much bigger hole. We are talking about a lot of money. Germany will only spend 1.6 percent of its GDP on defense in 2023. That is $18.1 billion short of the commitment that it has made not once, not twice, but three times. Now, NATO is an alliance. It means we are friends, and we are. It means we know that we are stronger together. It means that if you come for one of us, you are going to have to fight all of us. That is what it means. At the end of the day, an alliance, though, is just a promise. That is all it is, but it is built on mutual trust. It states that we won't leave each other to fight threats alone, and that is what NATO is supposed to stand for and I am very proud of that and so are the American people. We support NATO. But when countries in NATO choose not to keep their commitment to spend 2 percent on their own defense, they weaken the alliance of NATO. It shows us and it shows our enemies that we cannot count on those countries to step up to help keep all of us safe. And it tells Putin-- it tells Putin that some NATO members are content sitting back and waiting, rather than remaining strong together, and that is just a fact. Friends tell friends the truth. Now, the United States of America, we keep our promises. And all along, every year through the history of NATO, we have proudly invested in our defense to the benefit of our allies--to our own benefit but to the benefit of our allies. And it was important to our allies in Europe. It was. I don't know what would have happened in Europe had the American people not come to Ukraine's rescue. Putin may be in Paris right now, for all I know, God forbid. Now, a few of our NATO friends have kept their commitment, and I want to thank them. Our friends in Greece, for example, our friends in the United Kingdom, our friends in Estonia, they spent 2 percent of their GDP on defense before Putin invaded. Our friends in Lithuania and in Hungary and Romania and Slovakia, they will all reach the 2-percent threshold by the end of this year. And that is a good thing. Thank you, Greece. Thank you, United Kingdom. Thank you, Estonia. Thank you, Lithuania and Hungary and Romania and Slovakia, for keeping your word. Now, Finland--Finland just joined NATO. We are so pleased. Our friends in Finland spent 2 percent on defense before joining NATO, but they didn't use the alliance as a reason for taking their foot off the gas. Instead, Finland increased their defense spending even more to 2.4 percent of GDP. Thank you, Finland. I hope our allies, which have been nestled safely under the NATO umbrella for years without pulling their financial weight, will take note of Finland's dedication. Let me say it again: Thank you, Finland. And we have got to commend Poland. Poland spent 2 percent on defense long before Putin invaded Ukraine, but over the past 2 years, it hasn't spent 2 percent--Poland hasn't. It nearly doubled its defense spending to 4.3 percent. It is investing that money, in part, by buying American weapons, and it is showing Putin that Poland is serious about its sovereignty and that Poland is serious about freedom. By the end of this decade, Poland is on pace to have more tanks than the United Kingdom, than Germany, than France, than the Netherlands, than Belgium and Italy put together--put together. Thank you, Poland. Now, I understand you don't have to be Mensa material to understand that Putin's threat is more visceral when it is happening next door, and of course Poland is much closer to Russia than Germany or France is. I get that. But when you are allies, when you are friends, when you have promised not once, not twice, but three times to have each other's backs, you are not only supposed to think of yourself and your proximity to the threat. You know, as Americans, we have got an entire ocean between us and Russia. We have got an entire ocean as our buffer against Putin's tanks. But I doubt that Germany or France--both good friends, love them to death--but I doubt that Germany or France would support the United States backing away because we aren't close enough to the shelling to be bothered. Let me be frank. Allies through NATO have pledged to have each other's backs, and I see no sense in bubble-wrapping it. That starts by putting your money where your mouth is. I want to be frank again. Some of our friends in NATO have engaged in a cycle of broken promises time and time and time again. Putin shows his cruel aggression, and horrified European leaders pledged to invest in defense. Then Putin's aggression maybe falls off the front page of the paper, and leaders forget their promise to invest until Putin's rockets start blowing up another city. It has been more than a year, as the Presiding Officer knows as well as I do, since Putin sent Russian tanks and troops into Ukraine. And maybe for some the horror of it all has worn off, maybe. It hasn't worn off for most Americans, and it sure hasn't worn off for Ukraine. Citizens of a sovereign Ukraine are still dodging missiles on their own streets, and Putin is still watching too many NATO members bury their heads and drag their feet. And so is President Xi Jinping. Now, I don't mean to offend anyone--I don't--but friends tell friends the truth, and everyone in NATO is a friend. And I am so proud that the United States of America is a member of NATO. But NATO is only as strong as our confidence in one another. If we want to strengthen NATO's ability to deter bad actors from bad acts, we have each got to do our part. It is time for all of us in NATO to start keeping our promises and investing in our defense. The American people have sent over $100 billion to fight Putin in Ukraine, and I don't regret a single penny. We kept our word. But, again, friends tell friends the truth: Not all of our allies in NATO have, and it is time they put their money where their mouth is.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am going to talk for a few minutes about NATO, but before I do that, I want to make two preliminary points. I believe that America's aid to Ukraine is not charity. I believe that aid is in America's national security interest, and I have voted accordingly. I am convinced that Vladimir Putin, President Xi Jinping, and the Ayatollah of Iran are working together. I am convinced that their objective is to have Russia dominate Central and Eastern Europe; the Ayatollah from Iran dominate the Middle East; and China, through President Xi, dominate the Indo-Pacific, Sub-Sahara Africa, and South America. That is not a world that is safe for the United States of America. That certainly isn't a world that is safe for democracy. That is point one. Point two, I have been sorely disappointed at the refusal of the U.S. Senate to appoint or to pass a bill that would allow the President to appoint--confirmed by the U.S. Senate--a special inspector general to follow the money in Ukraine. Once again, I have voted to send that money to Ukraine not as an act of charity but because I believe it is in America's national security interest. But that money didn't just fall from Heaven. That money that we sent to Ukraine--we thank Heaven for it, but it came out of the pockets of the American taxpayer. I understand that we have an inspector general from the Department of Defense following the money, and I don't mean to be overtly critical. I would point out as an aside that I find it somewhat ironic that the Department of Defense inspector general says ``We have got this,'' but yet the Department of Defense has never been audited. Ever. Never. The Department of Defense is the only Agency in the U.S. Government that has never been audited, and the American people know that. That is why I and a number of my colleagues have asked this Senate to pass a bill to allow the President to pick a special inspector general of his choosing to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate to follow every single dollar we are sending to Ukraine and to answer to the Members of the Senate, Members of the House, and, most importantly, to the American people. Many Republicans and many Democrats have supported that effort, but many Democrats and many Republicans on both sides of the aisle have refused. Now, I am going to keep trying, but, as I said, this money didn't just fall from Heaven; it came out of people's pockets. (Ms. BALDWIN assumed the Chair.)

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1034. I ask that it be reported by number. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Menendez and I each have 3 minutes to discuss this amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as we all know, the International Monetary Fund--or the IMF, as we call it--is an international bank. Most countries belong to it--190, in fact. Virtually every country in the world is a member of the IMF--there are 190 countries--and everybody puts up money. When another country gets in trouble, the IMF helps bail them out. Now, not every country in the IMF is equal in voting rights. The countries that put up the most money get most of the voting rights and have most of the control. And you will not be surprised to learn that the United States of America puts up over $100 billion, and we have the largest share of voting rights. Periodically, the IMF issues what are called special drawing rights. The technical definition of a special drawing right is an international reserve asset created by and issued by the IMF. But forget that. Let me tell you what a special drawing right is. A special drawing right is like a dividend. Think of it as a poker chip. So the IMF says: We are going to give dividends or poker chips to every member of the IMF. Well, what can you do with this poker chip? Well, if you are Iran, for example, you can take this poker chip and go to the IMF and say ``Here is my poker chip, and I want $1.42''--that is the exchange rate--``of U.S. dollars,'' whether Iran needs it or not. Pretty sweet deal. Iran would never have to pay back that money. The IMF does charge Iran interest on those U.S. dollars. Iran wouldn't have to pay it back, but they have to pay interest. Guess what the interest rate is. It is .05 percent--not 5 percent, .05 percent. Sweet deal for Iran, especially when they don't need the money. My amendment would simply say that the United States cannot-- Secretary of the Treasury--cannot vote to approve special drawing rights, or these poker chips, for any country that, according to the State Department, sponsors genocide or state-backed terrorism--genocide or state-backed terrorism--unless Congress approves. I will reserve my time but yield to Senator Menendez, my good friend from New Jersey.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much additional time do I have?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this bill will not take poker chips--and that is what they are--away from any country unless they are engaging in genocide or State-sponsored terrorism. That is it. The world will not spin off its axis. If you think a country that commits genocide or State-sponsored terrorism should get poker chips, vote against this bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as we know, President Biden has been talking the last 30 to 60 days about Bidenomics. I think it would be fair to say that because so many Americans are struggling to support their families, President Biden is struggling to explain what he means by ``Bidenomics.'' I think most fairminded Americans, based on the, what, year and a half and a few months that President Biden has been President, understand what Bidenomics is because they understand, at this juncture, what President Biden believes in, not only what he believes in, what he has done. Bidenomics, to most fairminded Americans, is bigger government. Bidenomics is higher taxes. Bidenomics is more regulation. Bidenomics is more spending. Bidenomics is more debt. Bidenomics is also inflation. Let me say that again. First and foremost, Bidenomics is inflation. President Biden's inflation--history, I believe, will demonstrate this--is a cancer on the American dream. It is a cancer on the American dream. Since President Biden has been President, electricity is up 24 percent. There is your Bidenomics. Gas, gasoline--I will quote you from Louisiana--is up 65 percent. Eggs are up 39 percent. Potato chips are up 25 percent. Bread is up 26 percent. Coffee costs 30 percent more, thanks to President Biden's inflation and Bidenomics. Rice is up 29 percent. Flour is up 25 percent. Milk is up 18 percent; ice cream, 18 percent; chicken, 23 percent. I could keep going. Let me give you a few statistics to put those numbers in context. The median household income in my State of Louisiana is $53,571. The median household income of an American family, nationwide, is $70,784. So in Louisiana, the median household income--not individual income, household income--is about $54,000. The median income throughout America is about $71,000. In my State, Bidenomics and President Biden's inflation is costing my people--the average family in Louisiana--an additional $757 a month-- not a year, a month. That is $9,084 a year. So imagine, in Louisiana, if you are at the median household income of $54,000 a year--that is you, a spouse, and children--and, all of a sudden, in the past year-and-a-half, under Bidenomics, you have got to come out of pocket an extra $9,000 a year. You are making $54,000 a year to support the family, and now, all of a sudden, you have got to come out--you have to find--an extra $9,000 just to tread water. Where are you going to get that money? Maybe you saved up a little money from the stimulus checks, but that is probably gone. Maybe you have a savings account that you set aside, but that is probably gone now too. Maybe you have got a couple of credit cards, but you have maxed those out. Maybe you have a dream of sending your children to college and you have a college fund, but you have already had to dip into that. And there is no end in sight. Now, that is the experience of the people in my State, from Bidenomics, and I think that is the experience across America. That is why I say that inflation--President Biden's inflation--has been a cancer on the American dream. And I can tell you that in Louisiana my people are getting really good at barely getting by, and there is no end in sight. Now, I am pleased to be able to say that the rate of inflation has been coming down, and I hope it keeps coming down. Our last inflation numbers showed that. You will see them reported in the media. Inflation is now at 3 percent. That is sort of accurate. It is at 3 percent, but the reason it is at 3 percent is primarily because of the fall in the price of gasoline. Gasoline is still high, but the price of oil has come down because our economy and the world economy are so weak. So there is less demand for it. But more important than overall inflation is what we call core inflation. That is what most economists look at. It would be core inflation because core--C-O-R-E--inflation looks at inflation without looking at energy or food, because energy and food can both be very volatile. Core inflation is at 4.8 percent, and it has been very sticky, still way over the Federal Reserve's targeted 2 percent. But it has been coming down, and that is good news. But what does that mean? All it means is that the rate of increase in inflation has been slowing. When you have inflation, let's say at 8 percent, and you get it down to 6 percent, that means that you have reduced the rate of increase of the prices. The economists call that disinflation. That doesn't mean that prices are going down. It just means that prices aren't rising as rapidly. And if we can get core inflation down to 2 percent, that does not mean these high prices that I just quoted are going to go down. That would be deflation. I regret to tell you, Mr. President--and I think you know what I am saying is accurate--these high prices are permanent. We are going to be stuck with a 24-percent increase in electricity. Even if we can get inflation down to zero percent, these high prices that have been caused by Bidenomics are permanent. We are going to be stuck with coffee up 30 percent. I am not going to reread the list. That is why I say that inflation, the major product of Bidenomics, has been a cancer on the American dream. Now, my people in Louisiana need every dollar they can get right now. The average family making $54,000 a year is now having to find an additional $9,000 a year, and that is not going to change. Their only hope is that it doesn't get worse. So I want to call the attention of my people to tax refunds. A lot of my people get tax refunds. They get money back. They have money withheld from their paycheck, and, oftentimes, it is too much. And the State of Louisiana and the Federal Government owe them money in the form of a tax refund. And sometimes my people in Louisiana are busy earning a living. They get up every day. They go to work. They obey the law. They pay their taxes. They try to teach their children morals. They try to do the right thing for their children. They get busy, and, sometimes, people forget to claim their tax refunds. So I am here today, No. 1, to try to explain Bidenomics and tell the people of Louisiana and the people of America that I am sorry they are having to go through this. But, No. 2, I understand that every dollar counts. And please, please, please, check and see if you are due a tax refund. For example, now, start with the State. The State of Louisiana is holding almost $12 million--$11,574,249--that is owed in tax refunds to the people of Louisiana. So 15,461 people are owed tax refunds, and they haven't claimed it. The average refund is about $750. You need to claim it, I say to my people. You need to claim it by August 28. If you don't claim it by August 28, you won't lose it. The money will be transferred to the Treasury Department and become part of what is called the Unclaimed Property Program, and then you just have to fill out more paperwork to get your money. So if you think you have a tax refund due from the State of Louisiana, go get it by August 28. It is worth checking. All you have got to do is go to the department of revenue website: revenue.louisiana.gov--revenue.louisiana.gov. Now, also, my department of revenue--thank you for doing this--just sent out letters to every one of these 15,461 people to whom the State owes a tax refund. Our department of revenue sent them a letter. Please open that letter and don't throw it away. This includes individuals and women and businessmen. All you have to do is open that letter. There is a voucher in there. You fill it out and send it back into the department of revenue, and you will get your money. So please do that. You earned it. Now, at the Federal level, it is a little more complicated, to no one's surprise--at the Federal level. I tried to get the information from the IRS about how much is owed to my people in terms of Federal income tax refunds. You won't faint with surprise when I say it is hard to get them on the phone. And when we did get them on the phone, they said: We can't give you that information. If we told you, we would have to kill you. So I went back and did some research. The most recent numbers I have are from 2019. In 2019, tax refunds in the amount of $22 million were owed to the people in Louisiana. These are Federal income tax refunds. This is 2019 now. I don't know what the current number is because the IRS won't tell me. But based on 2019 numbers, it is anywhere from $22 to $25 million, and based on 2019 numbers, about 22,000 Louisianians are owed Federal income tax refunds on top of the State income tax refunds. And I want to encourage them to check to see if they have a Federal income tax refund. Here is what you need to do. You can call them if you like, but lots of luck. Go to www.irs.gov/refunds_www.irs.gov/ refunds_and you can check to see if the IRS owes you a tax refund. You are going to need your Social Security number, of course, or your taxpayer ID number. You are going to need your filing status. They want you to tell them the exact amount of your refund. They have all that information, but they want you to tell it to them. Just don't argue with them. Just go ahead and do it, based off your tax return. And you can make a claim there, online, and give them a reasonable amount of time, and you can get a check from the Federal Government as well. I used to be the tax collector in Louisiana, and I can tell you that, for a variety of reasons, a lot of people--not just Louisianians but all across America--forget to claim their State income tax refund and/ or their Federal income tax refund. So I hope they will take advantage of this. I am sorry. I just want to say to them that I am sorry that the Federal Government has let them down. I am embarrassed about Bidenomics. I am sorry about this inflation. It is a cancer on the American dream. I am afraid it is going to be with us awhile. I hope I am wrong. But if we succeed in getting that rate of inflation down to 2 percent, that doesn't mean prices are going to go down. I wish I could sit here and tell you that. These higher prices are coming. What we are trying to do is just stop the increase and stop the crisis from going up so fast. So I hope you will take advantage of this information, not just in Louisiana but all across America, and go claim your tax refunds if you are owed. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, some time ago, Senator Sinema and I introduced the Independent and Objective Oversight of Ukrainian Assistance Act to create a special inspector general to follow the money with respect to Ukraine. Senators Hawley, Paul, Risch, and Wicker have been important voices in this. Indeed, they have had their own bills. We have gotten together and worked out a compromise. Our bill would create a lead inspector general among the inspectors general right now doing the auditing, which are the Department of Defense, the State Department, and USAID. This lead inspector general would be our contact. We could go to that inspector general and get answers. By law, the inspector general would have to respond in 15 days. We will not need Senate confirmation because I expect the President to appoint as the lead one of the inspectors general who are currently involved. I urge favorable passage and yield to Senator Wicker or Senator Risch.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, do the proponents have any additional time?

Mr. KENNEDY. Go ahead. Save some more for me.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. You are a fine American.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the American people have sent over $100 billion to help our friends in Ukraine, and most Members of this body have supported it. But this money didn't fall from Heaven; it came out of people's pockets. How can we possibly look the American people in the eye and say that we don't want to ensure to them that this money will not be stolen? That is all this bill does. It lets the President appoint a lead inspector general to answer to the U.S. Congress so we can look the American people in the eye and say: Your money was not stolen. I can't imagine that we would not pass this bill. How can you go home and explain this to your people? You can't.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to use several props during my remarks.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Silas James Hogg. I want to introduce Silas to you, Madam President, to the American people and to my colleagues in the Senate. I would love to be able to put his photograph up here because he is a fine-looking young man, but for privacy reasons, I have decided not to. Silas and I go to the same church, so, in some ways, we have kind of grown up together. His mom and dad are Jeff and Shannon Hogg, two wonderful people, two great parents. Silas has a sister named Ellie Grace. Ellie Grace is splendid in her own right. Maybe someday I will come down to talk about Ellie Grace, but today I want to talk about Silas. Silas is a rising eighth grader. He just finished the seventh grade. Next year, he is going to attend the Brighthouse Learning Academy. In his spare time, he likes to play with his mom and dad and sister. He is very close to all three of them. He has a motorized bike that he likes to ride around his neighborhood. He likes to play LEGOs. He likes to play video games. He has three pets: two dogs and one cat. Toby and Milo are the pups. Kahn is the cat. Kahn probably rules the roost. Silas, as I alluded to, is--I hope you are listening, Silas. Silas is whip-smart. He is kind. He is special in every way, and he is what cool looks like. Why am I talking about Silas? I just want to thank him. Over the break, Silas gave me a present. It was heartfelt from him, I know, and it was heartfelt when I received it. First, he gave it to me in this envelope. It was very safe. He stapled it together. He gave me a pen. Silas knows I am always losing pens. And he gave me--we are still talking about what it is, but it is a glass stone or crystal. We are in the process of researching it. But, Silas, I can't tell you how much this meant to me and does mean to me, my new pen--we are not going to lose it; I am going to put it right here--and my new lucky stone. You are special, Silas. You are special in many, many ways. And I want you to know, Silas, that I am bringing back home to you--in thanks for your gift, I am going to give you a gift. I am going to give you a gift of the seal of the U.S. Senate. Silas is one of Louisiana's best and brightest. He has challenges-- gosh, we all do--but he rises above them every day. Thank you, Silas.