John Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, with respect to my amendment, I offer it on behalf of myself and Senator Cassidy. The last 18 months have been challenging for Louisiana. First, there was Hurricane Laura. Then there was Hurricane Delta. Then there was Hurricane Zeta. The hurricanes alone did about $25 billion of damage. Then we had the historic freezes. Then we had historic flooding. The total amount of damage was $47.1 billion. My people are tough, but they are tired. This amendment would appropriate $1.1 billion in community development block grants to help my people recover. I bring you a problem but also a solution. Thanks to the efforts of Senator Cantwell and Senator Schatz and myself, 3 years ago, we convinced the FCC not to give away the spectrum auction, which belongs to the American people, and instead to auction it off. There is now $80 billion sitting in Treasury. The money for these block grants would come from that $80 billion in cash. Thank you.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KENNEDY. This is one of those days that we often have, at least for me, that is both happy and sad. A couple of weeks ago, I was back home in Louisiana. I was sitting at my dining room table, minding my own business, drinking a cup of coffee, petting my two dogs--dogs are the best people--and I got a phone call from one Mr. John R. Steitz, who is my deputy chief of staff for policy and my legislative director. I knew this phone call was coming someday. I knew it. I didn't know it was coming so soon, but I knew someday I would get this call. John said: Senator, they made me an offer I can't refuse. I am going to take it. I have to be honest. I thought to myself: Damn, you know, Steitz is leaving. Another part of me was saying: God, I am so happy for him. I am really pleased with his new position in the private sector. I wanted to suggest to him that if he needed any help picking out a new Mercedes, I could come help him. If he gets it down to this color or that color, he could just buy two. I have known some folks in public service. The Presiding Officer has too. I have known some people in business--to each his own--who are often afraid to hire people more capable than them or smarter than them, and that is human nature, you know. I get it. I will have a lot to answer for on judgment day, but doing that is not one of the things. I have always tried to hire people who were smarter than me or more capable than me or had talents that I don't have. But there is a price you pay when you do that. You are going to lose them at some point because you can't keep a good person down. And that is John Steitz. So I knew this day was coming. That is why it really is bittersweet. John is--most of you know him--John is a graduate of SMU. When we are joking around, I like to say that the closest John ever got to a 4.0 at SMU was his blood-alcohol level, but that is not accurate. John, as we all know--and we are kidding--is whip-smart. He finished SMU in public policy and business administration. I think he had a minor in cheerleaders, but he never neglected his studies. He is a very smart guy. He is whip-smart. Don't ever let him try to kid you. Brooks, his better half, who is here with us today, is an accomplished professional in her own right; and they are a team, I can assure you. When you work the hours that John Steitz works, you had better do it as part of a team. They have two children. Eleanor is their oldest. I am told that Eleanor's very first words were ``vote-arama.'' She said ``vote-arama'' before she said ``Mama'' or ``Daddy.'' That is an exaggeration, but probably not by much. They have a young son, John, Jr., whom they call Jack. If I taught a class or if the Presiding Officer taught a class, and if we told the truth about how a bill becomes a law, I think a lot of Americans would be surprised. This is not ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.'' It is hard to pass a bill in the U.S. Senate. It is supposed to be, because that is our job, to not act on the basis of feelings but to act on the basis of logic. It is a lot of work to get a bill passed. I have been able to pass a couple, and I wouldn't have passed one single, solitary one of them without John Steitz. I made a list here--and I am not going to read all of it--of stuff, like the National Flood Insurance Program Extension Act, the Justice Against Corruption on K Street Act, the RBIC Advisers Relief Act, the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act, and the Rebuilding Small Businesses After Disasters Act. You know, this isn't all my doing. This has John Steitz's fingerprints all over it--on every one of these bills. John has a rare combination, and he is going to do really well in the private sector. I mentioned that he is whip-smart, and he is, but it takes more than that to succeed around here. First, you have got to have a work ethic. You have got to be willing to put in the hours. I can't tell you the number of times I looked around when I was working late and I would see Steitz there. I would say: Steitz, go home for God's sake. Brooks is going to change the locks on you. She may already have. He was there constantly. I don't know when he found the time to father Eleanor and Jack. I mean, he was always in the office. So you have got to have a work ethic, but it is more than that. You have got to like people; you have got to understand people; and you have got to respect people. You have got to know which bridge to burn and which bridge to cross. You have got to understand when to go forward and say, ``To hell with it. We are going full speed ahead,'' and when to back off a little bit. It is a lot more art than science, and everybody in this Chamber knows what I am talking about. That is not something you pick up in a week. When I asked John to be my legislative director before he became deputy chief of staff, he didn't have all of this. I mean, he was as green as a gourd. I was too. He learned it. He learned it on the job, and, boy, did he do an incredible job. There is one other quality you have got to have to succeed around this place aside from smarts, work ethic, respect for other people, and integrity, all of which John Steitz has. You have got to care. You have really got to care. You can't fake it, you know. You can't be motivated by moving up another rung on the ladder, though some people are. I get it. We are all human. Sometimes that may be a part of it, but if that is your sole motivation, you are not going to make it. People up here on Capitol Hill are smart. They can smell it. So you can't be guided by ambition. You have got to be guided by knowledge, yes; by wisdom, yes; but also by empathy. John knows what he believes. He believes what he believes, and he is willing to fight for it. But he is also willing to listen to another point of view. There were many times he would come to my office and say: You know, here is what is going on. Look at it this way, but listen to it from this perspective. He is also sneaky. Now, I don't mean that in a bad way. By sneaky, I mean he is a great strategist in terms of he can figure out how to go from point A to point B to point C, do a half gainer, get to point D, and circle back to point A. There are some times when John has come to my office and said: Here is how we are going to get this amendment done, or here is how we are going to get this passed. Then he will lay out the plan. I wish I could use examples, but I would tip my hand. He would lay out the plan, and I would say: John, this isn't college. Have you been smoking dope around here? This isn't college. We can't do that. It will never ever work. It won't work. It usually did. But I always said: Well, heck. Let's try it. If you want to try it, I am willing to try. It is legal; it is honest; but it is just such a long shot. But it worked, and I was appreciative of that. That didn't just happen. That came from smarts, hard work, and caring. I guess I will end. Thank you, Brooks, for sharing your time and for sharing John with us. I know it wasn't easy for you. We are going to--I started to say that we are going to miss you, but we expect you to come back around and bring Eleanor and bring Jack and bring Chili. John has a great dog. Chili became the mascot in the office. Chili is the best beggar you have ever seen. I am going to miss him. I want to thank John here today for giving so much. He could have made a lot more money in the time he has been here in the private sector because he is that talented, but he is moving to the private sector. It is their gain and our loss. He is welcome back any time. Thank you, John. Thank you, thank you, thank you not just on my behalf, but on behalf of the people of Louisiana and on behalf of the American people for giving so much to your country. God bless you. Godspeed. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise today on my own behalf and on behalf of my colleague Senator Bill Cassidy. I know this has been true for States besides Louisiana, but for the last 18 months, from a weather perspective, Louisiana has been a fantastic impression of hell. We have had three hurricanes. We have had, depending upon how you define them, probably 10 different heavy rain events. And when I say ``heavy rain events,'' I mean, that doesn't sound very serious. I can assure you, it was. When you get 6, 8, 10, 12 inches of rain in a short period of time, you are going to flood. I don't care if you are living on Pikes Peak. You are going to flood. The water has to go somewhere. And, of course, we were part of the bad, debilitating freeze, as well, that also hit Texas very hard. My people are very resilient, and they are tough, but they are tired. Most Americans, when they think of a natural disaster, at least in connection with Louisiana, think of Hurricane Katrina, and, certainly, it was a bad one. I was there. We never would have recovered without the help of the American people, and I will never be able to thank the American people enough for putting forth their hard-earned tax dollars to help us recover. These new hurricanes and rain events and freezes impacted probably close to one-third, maybe 40 percent of my people. The worst part of it, but not the only part that was hit hard, was Southwest Louisiana. At last count, about 100,000 homes were damaged, flooded, or blown over. They are still running the numbers. The damages are in the billions and billions and billions and billions of dollars, and my people need help. The purpose of my bill today is to offer us help for them. My bill today and Senator Cassidy's bill today--as I said, I am here on behalf of Senator Cassidy, as well--would authorize $1.1 billion to help my people recover. Now, I want to emphasize, some people, when they think of flooding and hurricanes, think of wealthy people with second homes, with multimillion-dollar dwellings on the beach. That is not what I am talking about. I am not putting down anybody who has a nice, expensive beach house, but that is not what we are talking about in Louisiana. The people who were hit by these weather events, through no fault of their own, are just good, honest middle Americans who get up every day and go to work and obey the law. They pay their taxes. They try to do the right thing by their kids. Their biggest investment is their home, and many completely lost their home. Many of them had flood insurance, and many of them had homeowner's insurance--and both. But it just didn't cover their losses completely. So we are talking about middle America here, and I want to make that clear. Now, Mr. President, I am sure you are thinking, because I know you well and you are a smart man: OK, if we are spending $1.1 billion here, where are we going to get it? Well, I come to you today with a problem, but I also come to you today with a solution. I don't want to digress too much, but, as you know, we are trying to build out 5G in America, and 5G operates through radio waves through the air called spectrum. And the FCC is in charge of those radio waves. A couple of years ago, the FCC--and those radio waves, by the way, belong to the American people. The FCC licenses them out to companies to use in wireless communications. A few years ago, the FCC was about to give away what is called the C-band spectrum, these particular radio waves that would allow for 5G to become reality in America. And a number of us objected. We said: You know, you don't own these radio waves. The American people own these radio waves. Why are you giving them away? And after some lively discussions, we finally turned the FCC around, and they decided to auction those radio waves to the highest bidder. They brought in $80 billion--$80 billion--and I am very proud of that. That money is sitting in an account in the Department of the Treasury. Senator Cassidy's bill and my bill would authorize the use of $1.1 billion of that $80 billion in cash to be used through community development block grants to help my people recover. I can assure you that I wouldn't be here today asking for this if my people didn't desperately need it. They are hanging on. They are hanging on with every ounce of strength they have, but they are human. And, as I said, they are tough, but they are tired. For that reason, on behalf of Senator Cassidy and myself, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2359, which is at the desk. 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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think we are all aware President Biden has decided to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan in September. Now, some agree with his decision; some disagree with his decision. The bill that I am about to talk about has nothing to do with the merits of his decision. There are about 18,000--not 1,800, 18,000--interpreters and members of their immediate families who helped our troops fight the war in Afghanistan against the Taliban and against ISIS. They are at risk. There was an article in a leading newspaper yesterday. I will read you the headline. It says: ``Afghan government could collapse 6 months after US withdrawal.'' These 18,000 interpreters and their immediate families, who have helped American troops, would like to get out. We have a visa process, which is going very, very slowly. We will not be able to get all of those 18,000 human beings out before the withdrawal in September. That much is clear. Again, my bill has nothing to do with the merits or lack thereof of the war. My bill would direct the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State to develop a plan to relocate the Afghan interpreters and their immediate families who want to get out and bring them to America. Now, obviously, before we bring them to America, those who want to come, we have to vet them. That is part of the problem. The vetting process right now is very slow. Rather than try to put together a bill that would set forth a specific plan to address this--I consider it a crisis if you are 1 of those 18,000 human beings--my bill will just direct the Defense Department and the State Department to come up with a plan to present to us within 30 days. Now, my guess, and it is only a guess, is that State and Defense are going to come up with some plan to move those of the 18,000 who want to leave Afghanistan to a safe third place other than America so that we can continue to properly vet folks before they come into America. And I suggest we do need to properly vet them, but I also suggest that, No. 1, this is about right and wrong. These people helped Americans, and they helped American troops. And we owe them. And we don't want to see them massacred. And, No. 2, if we allow them to be massacred, I think it is going to send a message to many people throughout the world that loyalty to America means nothing, absolutely nothing. So, in a nutshell, this bill would ask our Defense Department and our State Department, in the next 30 days, to give a plan to Congress to properly vet and allow any of these 18,000 interpreters and their families who helped American troops come to America. With that, Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2216, which was introduced earlier today; further, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon table the table.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I respect my colleague, and I certainly respect his right to object. I disagree. We are all aware of what is going on in Afghanistan. The Afghan Government is in a bitter fight to the end with the Taliban. And the Taliban is winning. And the Taliban is ruthless. And they are going to murder these people. They are going to murder them. And the blood is going to be on American hands if we don't do something to help. My proposal would not have required any of these 18,000 Afghans who stood with American troops to beat back the Taliban and to beat back ISIS--they stood with us at their own risk, at the risk of their own kids, and their own spouses. Now, we decided to leave. I am not saying that is right or wrong. I have my own opinion, but that is not what this bill is about. And we owe it to these 18,000 people to offer them a chance to live. And if we don't do something, they are going to be butchered. They are going to be gutted like a deer--like a deer--and the blood is going to on American hands. And the whole world is going to take notice. There is right and wrong in this world. There is politics. There is a time for it. But there is a time to do the right thing, and the right thing is to help save these human lives who fought for America and their families and their children. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, it is with great pride that I recognize a constituent of mine, Sophia L. Thomas, DNP, APRN, FNP-BC, PPCNP-BC, FNAP, FAANP, of New Orleans, LA for her service over the last 2 years as president of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, AANP. Dr. Thomas has an exemplary career of service as a certified family and pediatric nurse practitioner and has been providing health care for over 25 years to medically underserved populations in the greater New Orleans, LA, region. Dr. Thomas practices at a federally qualified health center in New Orleans and is a clinical preceptor. As a primary care provider, Dr. Thomas provides her patients with access to cost- effective, patient-centered healthcare. Dr. Thomas has continued to work on the frontlines throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, including educating the public, diagnosing and treating patients, and going door to door to vaccinate residents in New Orleans. She holds a doctoral degree in nursing practice from Loyola University New Orleans, where she was honored with the Post-Master's DNP Nightingale Award, and she has a master's in nursing from Louisiana Sate University Health Sciences Center. She was inducted as fellow of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners in 2012. In 2020, Dr. Thomas was chosen as one of Modern Healthcare's 100 Most Influential People in Healthcare. The American Association of Nurse Practitioners is the largest national professional membership organization for nurse practitioners. Under Dr. Thomas's tenure, AANP membership has grown to more than 118,000 members. Dr. Thomas has helped lead nurse practitioners in transforming patient-centered healthcare and has made tremendous strides in ensuring that policymakers and the public understand the care that nurse practitioners provide to millions of Americans each year. I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating Dr. Sophia L. Thomas on a successful term as president of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners and in thanking her for the excellent health care she has and continues to provide to her patients as well as her leadership to the nurse practitioner profession.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to talk for a few minutes about nuclear energy. President Biden, of course, as we both are aware, has called climate change the ``existential threat.'' He says it is the ``number one issue facing humanity today.'' Secretary Kerry, who, as we know, is President Biden's climate envoy, has said that climate change is a ``life and death'' issue. President Biden's National Climate Advisor, the Honorable Gina McCarthy, believes that saving the environment is the ``fight of our lifetimes.'' If you ask many Members of Congress, not all of them--I don't want to paint with too broad a brush--but if you ask many Members of Congress what they think the solution to our environmental issues is, they will probably respond: renewable energy. But if we are really worried about the climate--and I know we all are; we all want clean air, and we all want bright water--I suggest that we also embrace nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is not only safe, but it is clean and, frankly, it can produce more power than renewables. Nuclear energy, as you know, creates little or no carbon emissions. Let me say that again. A lot of people don't realize it. Nuclear energy creates little or no carbon emissions. It also creates very little waste--an extraordinarily small amount of waste. All the nuclear waste that America's commercial nuclear industry has ever produced--ever, in the history of ever--can fit into a single football field to a depth of fewer than 10 yards Now, you compare that with solar panels, for example--solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste than nuclear plants in order to yield the same exact amount of energy--or compare the waste from nuclear power production with wind turbine blades. Wind turbine blades are very hard to recycle, and they usually end up in landfills. These facts are underreported, but the fact is that solar and wind power do have their own harmful impacts on our environment. There is no free lunch, as you know, and you don't get one now. There are pros and cons of everything. Solar and wind can't hold a candle to nuclear power when it comes to efficiency. That is just a fact. It takes more than 3 million solar panels or more than 430 wind turbines to produce the same amount of energy as the average nuclear plant. Let me say that again--3 million solar panels, 430 wind turbines to produce the same amount of energy as the average nuclear powerplant. And these numbers do not take into account that solar panels, as we know, are useless when the Sun doesn't shine, and wind turbines are nothing more than expensive paper waste when the wind doesn't blow. Also underreported, in my judgment, is how safe nuclear energy is. Despite what some people may think, Homer Simpson does not run America's nuclear powerplants. The industry is constantly evolving to make nuclear powerplants safer, to make them more efficient. In fact, we have all read a lot about small modular reactors. I will just use that as an example. These small modular reactors are part of a very promising new generation of advanced reactors that can automatically-- automatically--prevent overheating. And, frankly, they produce even less nuclear waste. Now, I want to be clear. I still believe in fossil fuels. I am an ``all of the above'' energy advocate, but leading that pack is fossil fuels. America's economy is the largest in all of human history, and it can't run without oil and gas. Louisianans know this, and most Americans know this. The people of Louisiana serve our country pretty well by contributing to our energy independence, and I am very proud of that. Last year, Louisiana supplied 9 percent--9 percent--of America's marketed gas. And Louisianans understand, as do, I think, most Americans, that giving up on fossil fuels would not only destroy jobs; it would ruin the economy. But I want America to use every advantage that it has. I want America to use every energy tool at its disposal. Now, that is why nuclear energy--I see nuclear energy as supporting oil and gas, not replacing it. I want to be clear about that, as supporting oil and gas, not replacing it. Since nuclear energy holds such promise--and it does--I am hoping that my Democratic friends in Congress and my Republican friends in Congress--because I see this as a bipartisan issue--will lend their full-throated support to nuclear energy. I am not saying that renewables don't have their proper place in America's energy policy--they certainly do--and I am not saying we should get rid of them--I am certainly not--but we need to acknowledge that renewables have limitations. They have limitations, and nuclear energy does not. There are disadvantages to renewables. As I said, there is no free lunch, and you don't get one now. Now, for some people, that is a lesson that needs to be repeated. I take note. I say this gently, but the Democratic Party platform, for example, calls for installing 500 million solar panels--500 million solar panels--and 60,000 wind turbines over the next 5 years. This will occupy a lot more land and actually create less energy than building new nuclear reactors. And that is a fact. Some small modular nuclear reactors are roughly twice the length of the average schoolbus--twice the length of an average schoolbus. Wind farms, on the other hand, can eat up more than 19 square miles. That is about half the size of Disney World--half the size of Disney World, compared to twice the length of the average schoolbus. If we succeed in blanketing our land with solar panels and wind farms, it is going to create more waste, occupy more green space, and ultimately weaken our economy. Again, I am not saying no to solar and wind. I am not at all. I am saying yes to explore the possibilities of nuclear energy. President Biden, as we know, has a $2 trillion infrastructure plan. And I think, if nothing else, his infrastructure plan establishes the Biden administration's priorities. His plan does call for $61 billion in initiatives that include investments in advanced nuclear technology. I am not sure I agree on the amount, but I like the concept, and I find that to be prudent. But it also asks for three times that amount--$174 billion--to support electric vehicles, electric cars. I suggest that nuclear energy has more place in energy's future, and it is something that we ought to talk about. Other spending bonanzas in President Biden's plan include a $213 billion investment to give 2 million buildings a Green New Deal makeover and $100 billion to make our schools greener. These are not going to have a more meaningful impact on our environment than exploring nuclear energy. They are just not. I know that nuclear energy sounds too good to be true, and I don't want to oversimplify the circumstances. Nuclear energy has its drawbacks, but nuclear energy is powerful. Nuclear energy is safe. Nuclear energy is clean. And by building up our nuclear power capabilities, the United States can create more jobs; the United States can strengthen its economy; and the United States can ensure its place as a world leader on energy. And we can do all that while reducing carbon emissions. I hope my colleagues will come to embrace nuclear energy as the efficient green energy source that it is and that the U.S. Congress can work with the White House to improve America's standing as an energy juggernaut. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with me today is one of my colleagues, Mr. Elad Vaida, and I also ask unanimous consent that Mr. Boatner Calhoun, who is an intern in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Congress.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise today to say thank you. I rise today to say thank you to President Biden and Secretary of State Blinken. They have both announced today, though it had been rumored for several days, that the United States of America is about to make available 500 million doses of the coronavirus vaccine to our friends and neighbors across the world. And I hope the President and the Secretary are willing to offer even more, if necessary. We have learned a lot about the virus and the disease that it causes. I will mention three things. No. 1, we have learned that the virus came from China; No. 2, we have learned that the best vaccines for the virus came from the United States of America; and No. 3, we have learned that the pandemic is not over. Yes, things are better in the United States. And we are so blessed in that regard, and I am so thankful. That is a combination of Americans receiving the vaccine; it is a combination of Americans being careful in their behavior. Our coronavirus rates are a combination of people who contracted the disease and therefore have the antibodies, and that is why our numbers are going down, and we are also thankful for that. But that is not the situation in other parts of the world. If you go to South America, if you go to Central America, if you ask anyone--if you ask Sub-Saharan Africa about how things are going in terms of the pandemic, it is alive and well and raging. And our friends and neighbors need the help, and I am grateful today that President Biden and Secretary of State Blinken are going to make that help available. For a couple of reasons, it makes sense to show the world what U.S. leadership really means. No. 1, it is the right thing to do. It is the moral thing to do. We developed a vaccine. We need to share it. That doesn't mean that we have to require pharmaceutical companies to share their patented and protected information. I think that is a real mistake. We can accomplish everything through licensing agreements. But we do need to share. No. 2, this makes sense in terms of our national security. It is not the most important reason to do this but in terms of national security and the rest of our neighbors throughout the world understanding that the American people are generous and that we help other folks when they are down. No. 3, it makes sense for the President and the Secretary to do this in terms of geopolitical terms. China is trying to do the same thing that we are going to do in terms of making vaccines available throughout the world. And I thank China for that, and I thank the Chinese people. The Chinese people are wonderful people. Their leadership, not so much. The Chinese people--let me say it again--the people of China are wonderful. The leadership of the Communist Party of China is a bunch of pirates. But I am thankful they are willing to make vaccines available. The problem is, they are making their own vaccine available, which is inferior to the American vaccine, and, No. 2, in many cases, their vaccine diplomacy--``their'' meaning, of course, the Chinese Communist Party's vaccine diplomacy--is tied to conditions. Yes, says the Chinese Communist Party, we will share our vaccine with you if you will help us take over Taiwan. Yes, we will share our vaccine with you, say members of the Communist Party of China, if you will join with us in saying that the Communist Party of China is doing nothing wrong in hiding the origin of the coronavirus. That is not what we are doing. Our gift, as Americans, to the rest of the world is unconditional. It is firm. It is categorical. It is the moral thing to do. It is the smart thing to do, in terms of our own national security. We can't completely recover until the world recovers. And No. 3, it makes perfect sense, in my judgment, in explaining to the rest of the world the difference between communism and the free enterprise system and the hearts that lie behind both of those systems. It is also, and I will close on this point--it is necessary. There are very few countries in the world--we are blessed to be one of them-- that have the ability to manufacture, to store, and to distribute the vaccine. Yes, it is wonderful to talk about, well, we are going to help other countries with their--let's say, their manufacturing needs. We should do that, but we don't have enough time. We just don't have enough time because in the developing world, when time is of the essence, they just don't have the ability that we have to manufacture a vaccine, which is only part of it; to store that vaccine, and these vaccines require very careful protocol in terms of storage; and No. 3, to distribute it. We can do all three, and President Biden, over the last several days, along with Secretary of State Blinken, said we are about to show the world what American leadership looks like. We are going to share our innovation and our vaccines with our world's neighbors, and there are no strings attached. And we are doing it because it is the right thing to do. I think all Members of this Congress should join with the President and should join with the Secretary of State in this effort. If they need the resources, I think we should provide them, and let's all get back on our feet together as a world. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to make two points. First, I want to associate myself with the remarks of some of my colleagues earlier about the fact that we don't know what is in this bill. That is not a criticism of anyone or any party. You can only absorb so much. If you define our job, at least in part, as representing our people and knowing what we are voting on when we vote, I would respectfully suggest we would be better off having our staff vote. Now, I doubt there is more than one or two or, maybe, three staff members who really know or who have a global, macro, picture of what is in the bill, but at least our staffs know more about it than we do. That is not a criticism of anybody or any party. That is just a fact. I think, if you were to just pick 10 Senators at random and ask them off the record, ``Do you know what is in this bill? Not every word, but do you have a general idea of everything in this bill?'' 9 out of 10 would tell you that they don't, and the 10th is probably lying. Now, I have said before--and I really think that it is a shame. I have said before--and I meant it--that I know some of my colleagues better than others, but I think I know all of my colleagues in the Senate. These are the most interesting, complex people--that is, in part, why they are interesting--whom I have ever been around. There are some enormously talented people in this body. Let me just pick one at random. When Senator Scott doesn't have time to understand or Senator Durbin doesn't have time to figure out everything that is in the bill because things are moving so fast, that shortchanges all of us. They are talented people. They may be able to say something: What about this provision? This doesn't make sense. What do you think, Senator Kennedy? What do you think, Senator Murphy? So that really bothers me. That is not a criticism of my Democratic friends, and that is not a criticism of the majority leader, Senator Schumer. It wasn't any better when the Republicans were in control. I just think that it is so sad, so unfortunate, and it is so avoidable. I understand that floor time is limited. So we want to do things quickly around here. But there is no law that says we can't start earlier and work later. There is no law that says we can't cooperate in terms of allowing the majority to have more floor time so that all of us have a greater opportunity to understand what we are voting on. I mean, excuse me, Senator Scott, look at that. I think that is only a portion of the bill. Honestly. Now, the second point I wanted to make--I learned really quickly when I got here that Senators are like cats: They do what they want. Why is that? Because we have minority rights. Our rules pretty much are written to protect the minority. So a fair question is, Well, how do we ever get anything done? Well, we do it by consent. We couldn't run this place without consent, and we give our consent automatically to a lot of relatively trivial matters, the day-to-day functioning of the Senate. Yet we don't readily give our consent--or at least not as readily as we should--when we are dealing with more important matters, like the Endless Frontier Act. Now, I voted to get on this bill because I was told that we were going to have an open amendment process. In my judgment, we didn't have an open amendment process. That is, again, not a criticism of the Democratic majority, and it is not a criticism of Senator Schumer. It wasn't a damn bit better when the Republicans had the majority. It just wasn't. An open amendment process, to me, means that any Senator should be able to come to this floor, respecting each other so that we allot ourselves time, and offer an amendment for all of us to hear. Now, obviously you can't spend 20 hours on one amendment, but if one wants to present an amendment, I think 5 minutes would be sufficient. We do that all the time in a vote-arama. When people--some people say, when I raised this issue, they say: Oh, vote-aramas are terrible because we are here all night. We don't have to be here all night. You can start a vote-arama at 8 in the morning and stop at 5:30 or 6. That is an open amendment process. An open amendment--I was told we would have an open amendment process. I wouldn't have gotten on this bill otherwise. Now, I don't know how it works on the Democratic side. I suspect it works very similar to the way it works on our side. You have an amendment, but you have to get the permission of other Senators to even offer your amendment. You have to go see the bill manager. You have to see the majority leader. You have to see the committee chairman. You have to see the ranking member. And anybody can say: No, I just don't like your amendment. And I think it works the same way on the Democratic side. That is not an open amendment process--not even close. You say: Well, why does it matter? You know, we have seniority, and we elect our leaders, and I get all of that, but nobody is infallible. I will give you a specific example. We are giving, in this bill, I am told--it could have changed overnight--but about $56 billion to the semiconductor industry. We are told we need to do that because the semiconductor industry--private semiconductor industry--is essential to our ability to compete with China. So far, so good. There are a lot of companies that are essential to competing in the global economy--the finance industry, the energy industry, the banking industry. We have to eat. Farmers--you could marshal a pretty persuasive argument that they are essential too. But this bill singles out the semiconductor industry for $56 billion, and I believe--I am not sure because it could have changed--that we are giving President Biden the authority to give up to $3 billion to each private company. So we are picking winners and losers. Some people like that; some people don't. I get it. That is why God made votes. We will have a vote on it, but the fact is that we are doing it. Senator Sanders had a very interesting idea. In fact, it is an idea that I had on my side as well. He said: Look, if we are taking taxpayer money and we are giving it to private companies, why don't we let the taxpayers participate in the upside? Why don't we give taxpayers--you can't give individual taxpayers, but you can certainly give, say, the Department of Treasury on behalf of taxpayers warrants or stock options. So if President Biden--if this bill passes and President Biden exercises his authority to give $3 billion to XYZ Semiconductor Company, and the semiconductor company uses that capital wisely and triples its profits, and its stock goes up 233 percent, the American taxpayer has warrants or stock options. Now, I am not speaking for Senator Sanders. I haven't really had a chance to talk to Bernie about his idea; I am just intrigued by it. I had a similar idea. I wanted to use stock options on my side. By ``my side,'' I mean the Republican side. I offered it up, and it is still floating around. It is probably in a black hole somewhere. None of the powers that be on my side that--they said: We are not going to let you do that. That is not an open amendment process. It is honestly not. And I hear this business about regular order, and I am not arguing that we are not following regular order. It is just that regular order is irregular. I mean, this is an incredibly talented group of people, and we ought to be able to design a parliamentary procedure that looks like somebody designed it on purpose so that every single Member in this body has a chance to offer input and to have his or her ideas seriously considered. And it won't be an unwieldy process. We do it all the time with the vote-arama. Now, vote-aramas--I am going to come back to a point I made earlier, but I want to emphasize it. Vote-aramas can be painful. Nobody likes to stay up all night. But we don't have to stay up all night. We can start at a reasonable hour and end at a reasonable hour. And I dare say that if you took all the time that we have spent collectively over the last week or so in the back rooms making deals, making side deals, saying ``You can't have your amendment''; ``Yeah, I like your amendment''; ``No, that is a dumb idea,'' none of which is transparent, until we come up, finally, with some kind of package that makes probably 75 percent of the folks mad and mostly 100 percent don't know what is in it--if we took all the time that we spent on that and instead spent it by saying ``OK. Here is the bill. You have a reasonable amount of time to understand what is in it, and now we are going to start the amendment process. There is going to be 5 minutes to present your amendment, and there will be 5 minutes to argue it by an opponent. We are going to really have 20-minute votes. We are going to start at a reasonable hour, and we are going to end at a reasonable hour, and then we will come back and do it the next day,'' yes, we will burn maybe 5, 6 days of floor time, but the minority party is going to cooperate with the majority party in terms of helping it preserve floor time that it has to have to do other things that the majority party needs to do. Again, I am not criticizing Senator Schumer. The Republicans did the same thing when we had the majority. But I just think we are wasting an enormous amount of talent in this body by, A, not giving them a voice-- witness Senator Sanders' warrant idea. I don't know what happened on his side of the aisle. On my side of the aisle, when I brought it up, they killed it deader than a doornail, and that is not an open amendment process. We are also wasting an enormous amount of talent because we are not-- in offering these ideas to each other, we are not getting the benefit of the wisdom of our colleagues. So I wanted to get that off my chest, and that is about all I have to say, and I appreciate your attention.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I love Senator Durbin. I hate his amendment. Here is why. These SDRs are not free money. They are not free money. They are like a cryptocoin. The IMF issues the cryptocoin to all the countries that are members of the IMF, and these countries take that cryptocoin, and guess what they do. They come to the United States of America and say: We want to exchange our cryptocoin for dollars. And guess what. We don't have the dollars because we are dead broke. So we have to borrow the dollars to give to the Chinas and the Venezuelas and all the countries that hate us in exchange for their cryptocoins. Now, that is just a natural fact, and if you check the record, you will find that as to the countries that really need the money to vaccinate their people, about 10 percent of this money is going to them. The rest is going to all the larger countries, like China, like Venezuela, like the countries in Europe. Virtually no money gets sent to the people who need it. This is an incredibly inefficient way to do it.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I want to just spend a few minutes today saying goodbye to a friend. Louisiana weeps right now. Gov. Charles E. Roemer III passed away last week. He went by ``Buddy.'' He served our State from 1988 to 1992. Before that, he served a number of terms in Congress. I guess I am biased because Buddy brought me to the dance, if you will. I was sitting in my office in New Orleans practicing law, earning a good living, you know, thinking about happy hour on a Friday afternoon, and Governor Roemer had just been elected and he asked me to come up to Baton Rouge and work as his legal counsel. And I did, and I stayed for 4 years. And I liked government service, and I have been in it, off and on, since then. Buddy was one of the--Buddy was an extremely--I say ``was.'' I am going to say ``is'' because he lives with us. But he was one of the most and is one of the most complex, interesting people I have ever met. He was immeasurably talented. He was raised on a cotton farm, but it wasn't really a farm because his parents and his family, they were all so accomplished. They put together a cotton farm with their own sweat and blood and some free enterprise capital of about 10,000 acres in North Louisiana. It is a big farm in Louisiana. But the kids all worked, including Buddy. They didn't have a television. Mr. Budgie, his dad, and Ms. Adeline, his mom, would require the kids, in their free time, to read books. And, boy, it stuck with Buddy. I never saw him without a book. I would ride with him to go to a speech. He would have a book in the car, and he would read it driving over there. He went to Harvard when he was 16. He would have gone sooner. Harvard offered him a position, but his mom and dad said: You are too young. You have got to stick around. And he stayed at Harvard for graduate school. Buddy was--how can I put this?--one of the first real intellectual Governors that we ever had in Louisiana. I am not putting down our other Governors, now--I am not--because all of our Governors have been intelligent, just like in the Presiding Officer's State. You don't rise to that position without being intelligent. But Buddy truly believed in the power of ideas, and he truly believed in the worth of education. I have used his words often. He used to say: Kennedy, the future in Louisiana is education. It is not the price of oil. It is not the unemployment rate. It is not who the Governor is. It is education. And he would say that time and again. During his 4 years--when he became Governor, we had a $7 billion budget. We had a $1 billion deficit. That is what he was left with. Roemer balanced the budget. It wasn't easy, but he did. And then he implemented fiscal reforms that dramatically and totally changed our way of budgeting in Louisiana for generations to come, because of Buddy's efforts. He announced in Louisiana--and this was heresy at the time: I am going to find out which of our teachers can teach, and, by God, I am going to pay them. And he said: But I am also going to find out which of our teachers can't teach, and I am going to either teach them how or tell them to find a new line of work. Boy, was that ever revolutionary. And he did it. He totally rewrote our campaign finance laws. When Buddy became Governor, there was no reporting of campaign money. If you were running for office, somebody could bring you a suitcase full of cash-- $200,000--and it was perfectly legal. You didn't have to report it. And if you got the money on a Thursday, if you decided on a Friday you weren't going to run and you withdrew from the race, you could keep it. You could keep it. Buddy completely rewrote all of that. Now you have to report every penny in, every penny out. There is a cap on contributions. No cash. And we enforce it. It changed our politics dramatically. I will tell you one quick story that epitomizes the Buddy I knew. There was a central piece of his education program. I won't bore you with the details. It had to do with higher education. It was key to our future, and we really needed to pass it. I was handling it, lobbying it for the Governor, and we needed one more vote in the senate--one more vote to pass this landmark bill. And this one Senator said: Kennedy, I will vote for it if you will have the Governor give me this project. So I was all excited. I went back to see the Governor. I said: Governor, I think I got it put together. It was a road project. He said: Call him over to our department of transportation and see what they think. And the folks at the department of transportation said: Yes, we can do it, but if we do it, we will all go to jail. So I said: Oh, man. So I go back, and I tell Governor Roemer. I was young, but I was passionate, and I said: Governor, we can't do it. He said: I agree. We are not going to do that. I said: But listen. This is so important. This particular Senator lies to us all the time. Let me just lie to him. Let me just go to him and tell him we will do it. We will get his vote, and then I will go back to him later and say we changed our mind. The end does justify the means. I will never forget it. Buddy says: No, we are not doing that. And I argued with him, but he finally just said: Look, Kennedy, I made my decision. We are not doing it that way. I am going to really miss Buddy. He wasn't a perfect guy. I told him one time--I said: Governor, if I were back in law practice in the private sector and you came to me as a private client, I would represent you, but I would quadruple my hourly rate. He was so smart, but he could be very opinionated. Tip O'Neill gave Buddy sort of his slogan phrase. Tip O'Neill described then-Congressman Roemer one time. He said: Congressman Roemer--often wrong, never in doubt. But I am going to really miss Buddy. All he ever wanted to do was change Louisiana, and he did. He wasn't reelected, but he did. But Buddy always understood. This was his barometer of success. He used to tell me and say: Kennedy, here is how you know when you are doing a good job: if you are making the right people mad. He used to say: If nobody is mad at you and if the wrong people like what you are doing, you are not doing your job. So he did make people mad, and it cost him his reelection. But he changed Louisiana, and Louisiana weeps. And when I count my blessings, I count Buddy Roemer twice. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, the International Monetary Fund issues special drawing rights. A special drawing right is like a cryptocoin-- it is not worth anything. It is only worth something if you exchange it for real money. The Biden administration decided to encourage the IMF to issue all of these cryptocoins, and guess what they are all doing? They are bringing the cryptocoins to the United States of America and are saying: We want dollars. Give me dollars for the cryptocoin. Yet we don't have any dollars in our checking account, so we have to borrow the money. There is no free lunch, and you don't get one now. All my bill would do would be to say that we are not going to issue special drawing rights to perpetrators of genocide or state sponsors of terrorism--in other words, no free money to China, no free money to Syria, and no free money to Iran. It is ludicrous for us to be borrowing money to give dollars to exchange for cryptocoins to China or Syria or Iran.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think I am like you in one respect. You know, I don't hate anybody, and I try to look for grace everywhere I can find it. I have always believed there is always something to be thankful for. I came today to thank the Biden administration but also to ask for its help. First, I want to thank the President for encouraging everybody to take the vaccine. I don't think anybody should be required to take the vaccine, and I am not saying President Biden does, but he and his team have been very aggressive in encouraging Americans to take the vaccine, and I think that is the proper approach. Do you have polio, Mr. President? I know you don't. I don't either. Thank you, science. The vaccine, I think, works. And once again, we are not telling anybody they have to take it, but I wish people would stop and reflect on it and weigh the pros and the cons, and I think they will see the pros outweigh the cons. I want to thank President Biden for his efforts in that regard. Here is my criticism: President Biden, at the worst possible time, is about to raise the insurance premiums for every flood insurance policyholder in America or almost all of them. So much for not hurting the middle class. So much for not taxing the working people. As you know, the National Flood Insurance Program, which is administered by FEMA, began in 1968. Many people don't know this, but if we own a home and we have homeowners insurance, our homeowners insurance doesn't cover flooding. If we do want flood coverage and we call our agent and ask them to place our flood coverage with a private company, they are very difficult to find. Almost no private companies offer flood insurance. So in 1968, the U.S. Congress decided to form the National Flood Insurance Program and have FEMA administer it. We insure, through our National Flood Insurance Program--which, once again, is the almost exclusive source of flood insurance for the American people--we insure about 5 million people. About 500,000 of those people are in my State, Louisiana, but we are not alone. I am sure we have people in Colorado. I know we have people in New Jersey and New York, in most of the coastal States and in many of the inland States, who have flood insurance. Now, FEMA has decided to implement a new program called Risk Rating 2.0. They always come up with a fancy name when they are going to screw you. Risk Rating 2.0. If you ask FEMA about it--you say: Well, what does this do, FEMA? Well, they try not to answer your question first, and they dodge and they bob and weave, but if you pin them down and read their literature, they will say: Well, with Risk Rating 2.0, we no longer are going to assess premiums on the basis of area; we are going to look at every specific home and assess its risk and assign a premium. We are also going to consider the future of climate change, what things are going to be like 15, 20, 30 years from now. I didn't come to debate climate change. I will save that for another day. There is a lot not to debate about. There is a lot we agree about. But this is coming from so-called experts. They are going to be able to predict things 30, 40, 50, 100 years from now, when they can't tell us if it is going to rain on Friday. This is all a very clever way to raise everybody's premiums. As best I can tell, about 80 percent of the people in my State who have to have flood insurance are going to see their rates go up. FEMA is probably going to start by doing a little bit the first year. They are going to say: See, we told you that wasn't going to hurt. But then they are going to do it the second year and third year and fourth year and fifth year and sixth year. Some of FEMA's minions who are advocating this say: Well, Kennedy, it is not right for the American people to be subsidizing wealthy people who have two or three homes and one of which is on the beach. I agree with that. Those are not my people. Those are not my people. My people who have flood insurance get up every day, go to work, obey the law, pay their taxes, try to do the right thing by their kids, try to save a little money for retirement, and their biggest financial asset is their home. Through Risk Rating 2.0 or whatever clever name they call it, when they start raising premiums, a lot of my people can't afford it, and it is going to impact the value of their home. They are going to lose equity in their most valuable asset, and they are not going to be able to sell it. And you don't have to be Einstein's cousin to figure this out. FEMA knows what it is doing. This is the most dramatic transformation and change to the National Flood Insurance Program since 1968. You would think that Congress would have something to do with it. Wrong. FEMA is doing this on their own. The first increases for new policyholders are going to take effect in October; for everybody else, in April 2022. You go to FEMA and say: Can we talk about this? No. Read our pamphlet. They haven't had any public hearings. They haven't allowed the public to comment. They hired a very expensive consultant. They love expensive consultants at FEMA--the more expensive, the better; the more expensive the lawyers are, the better. They have hired a consultant to try to cover their tracks on what they are doing here. This is just a flat-out rate increase. Insurance companies help FEMA administer the program. FEMA has told, we found out, the insurance companies: We can't tell you about the new program unless you sign a nondisclosure agreement because we don't want you to tell anybody. I mean, President Biden's FEMA is just going to drop this on us. And it is not just Louisiana. Look, this does involve Louisiana. I mean, last year, my people, we got hit by two major storms. We got hit, like a lot of States, by an ice storm. Right now, South Louisiana, or a big portion of it, is underwater. We just got hit with between 8 and 20 inches of rain, and we have people who are flooding who are not even near a body of water. I promise you, if you get 8 to 20 inches of rain in a short period of time, you are going to flood--I don't care if you are in the desert. I don't care if you are on Pikes Peak--you are going to flood. The water has to go somewhere. So, yes, this impacts Louisiana, but do you know who else it impacts? New York. New Jersey. They are going to get devastated. Chairman Brown, the chairman of our Banking Committee, very generously held a hearing the other day on Risk Rating 2.0. We had some really smart people come and testify about it. Of course FEMA wasn't there. You can't find FEMA with a search party. You can't find FEMA with Google. They are nowhere to be found. They don't want to answer questions. But we had a very intelligent, impressive lady from New York--I am sorry, I have forgotten her name--who testified very eloquently about how this rating increase across the board, willy-nilly, arbitrary, capricious--we don't have any input--is going to devastate New York. I am just very disappointed, and I am asking President Biden today to pick up the telephone and call his new FEMA Director and say: Slow down. At a minimum, don't treat the American people like morons. Sit down and talk to them and explain what you are proposing to do and why you are doing it, and let them have input The second thing I wish the President would do is pick up the phone and call his FEMA Director and say: Would you please consult Congress and talk to Congress about it and let Congress have a little input? Because last time I checked, there are three branches of government, and this is unilateral action by one Federal Agency. This is serious stuff. This is going to impact a lot of people. I said this before, and I don't mean to overuse it. I try to save it for really serious situations. But this is as serious as four heart attacks and a stroke, and it is going to happen out of the blue come October. I would just like to ask President Biden to consider asking his FEMA Director to please slow down and let us think this through. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am going to talk for a few minutes about mental health for our kids. I think many Americans have known and, unfortunately, some Americans have loved some of our fellow citizens who suffer with depression and anxiety and thoughts of suicide. It is a particular problem for our young people. CDC reports that one in four young Americans have actually considered suicide, and, in fact, the second leading cause of death for young people is suicide. I am sure there are a lot of reasons for this. I think it is harder to be a young person today. Many of our kids see things that those of us who are older didn't have to deal with until we were adults--drugs, of course; alcohol; also, social media. You can still find kindness in America, but unfortunately you have to go offline to do it. Some of our young people--many of our young people--just need someone to talk to. Some of them, when their anxiety and their depression is acute, need medical treatment, and this bill will simply provide a mechanism for our young people to receive it. The bill, as I said, is called the Improving Mental Health Access for Students Act. It would provide that schools--our universities--be required to print phone numbers for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, the Crisis Text Line, and a campus mental health center or program on the student ID cards. This bill would not require our schools to tear up current ID cards. It would be phased in. And if a school doesn't use an ID card, they don't have to start using an ID card. My bill would simply require that the schools put the information on their website. This bill passed unanimously by UC in our last Congress, but, unfortunately, the House ran out of time to take it up. Toward that end, Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I am going to ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1585, introduced earlier today.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the bill.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time.