John Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, as in legislative session, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 85, which was received from the House.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have 12 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 3, 2017, at 10 a.m., in open session, to receive testimony on the political and security situation in Afghanistan. Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 3, 2017, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Wells Fargo: One Year Later.'' Committee on Energy and Natural Resources The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to hold a Business Meeting on Tuesday, October 3, 2017, beginning at 10:15 a.m. in Room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to hold a hearing on Tuesday, October 3, 2017, at 10:30 a.m. in Room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Committee on Finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 3, 2017, at 10 a.m. in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``International Tax Reform.'' Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 3, 2017, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Nominations .'' Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 3, 2017, at 2 p.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Nominations.'' Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Every Student Succeeds Act: Unleashing State Innovation'' on Tuesday, October 3, 2017, at 10 a.m., in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 3, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing on the nomination of John M. Mitnick to be General Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on Tuesday, October 3, 2017, at 10 a.m., in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight of the Administration's Decision to End Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.''- Committee on Intelligence The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the 115th Congress of the U.S. Senate, on Tuesday, October 3, 2017 from 2 p.m., in room SH-219 of the Senate Hart Office Building to hold a Closed Member Roundtable. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources' Subcommittee on Energy is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to hold a hearing on Tuesday, October 3, 2017, at 2:30 p.m. in Room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.-

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to talk a little bit about Social Security and, specifically, about the windfall elimination provision and the government pension offset. Now, I know that sounds real technical, but, basically, here is the problem. We have a lot of Americans who have paid into Social Security who are now getting screwed by Social Security. They are not getting their money back. All of us want to do everything we can to maintain the stability and sanctity of the Social Security system, and I think all of us believe that we all ought to get the Social Security payments that we are entitled to. That is all this issue is about. Let me explain. For many middle-class Americans, receiving Social Security at retirement is sort of like a welcoming light at the end of the tunnel. They have worked hard, they have retired, and now they are entitled to some of the money back that they paid into the Social Security system. I am talking, of course, about the hard-working women and the hard- working men who have seen a chunk of their monthly earnings go into the Social Security system throughout their entire careers--10, 15, 20, and sometimes 30 and 40 years. These same Americans have not seen a pay raise or an increase in their median household income for a long time. The median household income in America today, as the Presiding Officer knows, is pretty much the same as it was in 1999. I guess whom I am talking about are ordinary people. You can call it the middle class, if you would like, or working families. They were the ones who were hit the hardest by the great recession of 2008. They have been struggling throughout their lives to participate in the great wealth of this Nation. They are entitled to participate in the great wealth of this Nation, and they should not have to keep on struggling to get money for retirement from the Social Security system when they have already paid into the Social Security system. The principle behind Social Security is pretty simple. Throughout your working life, you pay some money and your employer pays some money. When you are done working, or when you retire, according to a formula, you get your money back through a Social Security check. It is simple in theory. You put money in, and when you hit the retirement age, you get some of it back, except that for 1.7 million Americans, that is not the case. That is not how the system works for them. That includes about 38,000 hard-working folks in my home State of Louisiana, but there are a lot more in other States as well. I am talking about millions of teachers, police officers, firefighters, and a lot of other folks who earn modest pensions in service to their communities who face little or no access to Social Security. Here is what I am talking about. I am talking about a teacher who paid into the Social Security system. I am talking about teachers or firefighters or policemen who paid into their own retirement systems. So they are rocking along. They are, basically, paying into two retirement systems--Social Security and the private retirement system. They are doing the right thing in getting up every day, going to work, obeying the law, and trying to save money for retirement. It is deferred gratification. They are ready to retire, but because they were prudent enough to invest in a private retirement system, they do not get their Social Security check even though they have already paid into it. Additionally, a worker can pass away before reaching retirement age not even knowing that his spouse and children will not have full access to his Social Security survivors' benefits. That is just not right. Until 2005, there was not even a legal requirement for human resources to notify workers that switching careers would affect their eligibility for Social Security or Social Security survivors' benefits. Many of these 1.7 million Americans who are getting screwed tried to do the right thing. They paid into a private retirement system, and they paid into Social Security only to find out later that they can get their money from the private retirement system but that they cannot get their money from Social Security. They are being punished for being prudent. Many of them retire with no idea that that is the law. By then, of course, it is too late. In June of this year, one in six Americans collected Social Security benefits, and I am happy for every one of them because, to collect, they had to pay in. That is about 61 million Americans. By 2031, when the last of the baby boomers hits retirement age, that number is going to increase to about 75 million Americans. These are going to be our seniors. They are our seniors, and they are our seniors to be. They are battling against the rising costs of housing, healthcare, automobiles, taxes, and fees. Many of them have had their private retirement accounts or home values wrecked by the great recession. Yet these Americans press on. When we talk about tax reform--and we are going to be talking a lot about tax reform here over the next few weeks--we need to make clear that we are talking about reforms that will help these middle-class Americans. They are the people who get up every day, go to work, obey the law, and try to do the right thing by their kids and teach their kids morals and try to save a little money for retirement. Let me be blunt. I would like to eliminate the windfall elimination provision and the government pension offset in the Social Security office. I think it would be a vital step in ensuring that our middle- class seniors can enjoy continued economic security after their retirements. Not only would it help the economy, but it is the right thing to do. I sum up. We can provide economic relief immediately to some of those middle-class retirees about whom I have been talking by eliminating the windfall elimination provision and the government pension offset of the Social Security system. It will not cost much money. It will have a small effect on the cost of Social Security, at about 0.13 percent--not 13 percent but 0.13 percent. It is a little over one-tenth of 1 percent. After taking care of this simple fix, which is more than about money--it is about fairness--we can turn our eyes to out-of-control Washington spending to ensure that Social Security remains a reliable source of retirement income for Americans in the long term. Thank you. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I wish to change the subject slightly. I will be back on the floor next week to defend my good friend and colleague Senator Cassidy's ideas on the reform of healthcare for America. He received a letter today from our Governor and the Secretary of our Department of Health and Hospitals, which, in my opinion, espouses points of view on healthcare that are not in the best interests of the people of Louisiana. Just for a moment, I want to talk about tax reform because that is the other big issue in front of us. Like the Presiding Officer, I have been in government for a while. I have great respect for professional economists, but it has been my experience that for every economist, there is an equal and opposite economist, and they are both usually wrong. Economics today is more art than science. That is why I say it doesn't take an expert economist to see that something is wrong with the American economy. Mr. President, 2016 was the 11th straight year our economy failed to achieve 3 percent annual growth, which has been our average annual growth every year since 1960. I have heard numerous pundits act like returning to 3 percent growth is something special, something extraordinary. No, sir, look at the numbers. It is just average, and I think the American people deserve better than just average growth, but even average growth is optimistic if we keep hamstringing the men and women who create the jobs in this country. Our 40 percent business tax rate--let me say that again. Our 40 percent business tax rate and our broken Tax Code are chasing our ideas, our jobs, and our investors into the open, waiting arms of foreign countries. Our 40 percent business tax rate and our broken Tax Code are keeping wages and productivity low, they are crippling our small business women and small business men, and they have to go. When we are talking about tax reform, I think it is very important that we not forget the primary vehicle--not the only vehicle but the primary vehicle for economic growth in America is the middle class, which is what I want to talk about for a moment, tax relief for ordinary people. My constituents tell me every day: Kennedy, we look around in our economy today, and we see too many undeserving people at the top getting bailouts, we see too many undeserving people at the bottom getting handouts, and we are in the middle and we get stuck with the bill. They say: Kennedy, we can't pay it anymore because our health insurance has gone up--thanks to ObamaCare--our kids' tuition has gone up, and our taxes have gone up. I will tell you what hasn't gone up, our wages and our income. They feel that we in Washington don't listen and we don't care. They feel like they have no voice and no chance, and that anger is understandable. This bar graph shows U.S. real median household income going all the way back to 1999. We can see where it was in 1999: slightly over $58,000. This is median household income. Of course, it took a dip in 2012 as a result of the recession, but look where we are in 2016. We are practically right where we were in 1999. The middle class--the ordinary people of America--has made virtually no progress, and they have every right to be angry about that. It has been 16 years since President Bush's tax cuts, since the middle class has gotten a tax break. That is why I wanted to come to the floor today. Somebody has to speak up for the ordinary people of America and for our middle class. Middle-class families drive our economic engine. We are a consumer economy. Seventy percent of our economy is based on consumers. They buy the goods and services our businesses are selling. They work hard to be able to spend and save and invest. Most middle-class Americans get up every day, go to work, obey the law, pay their taxes, try to do the right thing by their kids, and they are falling further and further and further behind. Now, as they are trying to balance a checkbook, nearly one-third of their income is automatically withheld and sent off to Washington, DC. They never even see it. Come April, they may owe even more on their savings and investments. If you don't believe me, look at the numbers. You think America is broke? Between October 2016 and January 2017--just one quarter--the U.S. Treasury set a brandnew tax revenue record of $1 trillion--$1,084,840,000,000. A lot of that money came out of the hides of ordinary people. I will give you an example. Right now, if you are a middle-class family in Alexandria, LA--right smack dab in the middle of my State-- you have a household income of $59,000. You have two children. You want your children to have a better future than you had. You claim all your exemptions and you take the standard deduction. You are going to be paying the Federal Government about $3,500 a year. That is not even counting what that middle-class family has to pay in State and local taxes or their payments to Social Security or Medicare. By the time their bills are paid and by the time they put gas in the car, that doesn't leave them much to work with. I have an idea about how tax reform can target the middle class and bring ordinary people some badly needed relief. Seventy percent of Americans opt to take the standard deduction when filing their taxes-- 70 percent. They do that because it is simple, it is fair, and it requires less documentation than itemizing. In 2014, this option--this standard deduction--saved taxpayers of America about $217 billion. Yet they are still having trouble getting ahead. If Congress were to make one simple change as we enter upon this endeavor that we call tax reform--I call it tax cuts--like doubling the standard deduction across the board for everybody, including but especially the middle class, that would potentially inject about $600 billion back into our economy over 10 years. That is according to a 2014 CRS report. That would be an immediate shot in the arm to the American economy. That family of four in Alexandria, LA, whom I just talked about would have their Federal tax bill cut to $1,700, freeing up almost $2,000 of their hard-earned income. That is $2,000 toward a new car, a new lawn mower, fixing their home, putting money back into their business, or saving money for their children's college education. It is pretty simple. It is also $2,000 right back into the economy. As the cost of earning more is reduced, people will want to work harder. I believe people respond to incentives--not just Americans, but that is human nature. That means more productivity and more growth. It is economics 101. Unless you were throwing a frisbee in the quad, you were in an economics 101 class, and you know that if you give people more to spend and they spend it, the economy is going to grow in the process. I believe, Mr. President, as I know you do, that people can spend their own money better than the government can. The strength of the middle class was the cornerstone of our past economic growth, and I think it will be the key to our future. I have said it before, and I will say it again: We do need tax reform for businesses. I repeat: We do need tax cuts for businessmen and businesswomen--not just for the large C corporations but also for the passthroughs, the LLCs, the LLPs, the sub S corporations, and the sole proprietorships and family farms. If tax reform does not include relief for the middle class, if it doesn't include relief for ordinary Americans, then we will lose a historic opportunity. It will be another generation before we will have this opportunity again, and we will never get our economy back on track unless we can close that loop. We need to liberate the middle class and their power to spend and their power to save and renew their belief in the American dream. A tax reform policy that provides relief to the middle class, such as doubling the standard deduction--that certainly is not the only way to do it, but it would certainly do the trick--will give people the incentive to work and to save and to invest. Our economic fate is tied to the health of our middle class. I am not saying that other parts of our great Nation, our economy, are not important, but the bedrock is the middle class. The bedrock is small business. And it is high time that we offer ordinary Americans a tax code that believes in them. With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, let me say that my heart goes out to the people of America who are, right now, dealing with Hurricanes Harvey and Irma and their aftermaths. Tribute to Steve Gleason and Donna Britt Mr. President, ALS, which I think most of us refer to as Lou Gehrig's disease, has hit us hard in Louisiana. It has hit our world hard, but it has hit especially hard in my State. A number of my colleagues and a number of Americans, I hope, were watching the night the New Orleans Saints returned to the field after our State was devastated by Hurricane Katrina. That night in the Superdome, a young man named Steve Gleason became a legend. I know it was just a football game, but he blocked a punt deep in the territory of the Saints' opponent, the Atlanta Falcons, for a touchdown. It was more than just a touchdown; it was a declaration that Louisiana was going to come back, that our spirit was not broken. Today, Steve Gleason is battling ALS. The medical term for ALS is ``amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.'' We call it, as I said, Lou Gehrig's disease. It is a progressive neurodegenerative disease that destroys nerve cells in the brain and in the spinal cord. Regrettably, there is no cure. Steve, however, is determined to thrive and help others who have ALS. Within the past few weeks, we have also learned that another Louisianan has ALS--well-known Baton Rouge television news anchor Donna Britt. I will tell you, like Steve, Donna is showing true grit in the face of this horrible disease. Most of us would probably curl into a fetal position and cry if we were told we had a progressive neurodegenerative disease that is almost always fatal--but not Steve and certainly not Ms. Donna Britt. Their valor and their courage is inspirational to me and, I think, to all Louisianans. As Donna herself put it, she is going to continue living as a living person and not as a dying person. There is a famous line in a famous movie in which the main character says: I have a choice here--it is time to get busy living or get busy dying. Donna has chosen to get busy living. She is going to keep going to work, and she is going to keep caring for her family. Donna is educating herself about ALS. She has ordered a state-of-the-art wheelchair with Bluetooth technology, and she is adding words to a voice bank for when she can no longer speak because of this horrible disease. Donna Britt--I am not surprised--is determined to meet every challenge. Let me say it again. This is pure valor. It is the type of courage in the face of adversity that inspires us all. It is also Donna. I do not know how to put that any other way. That is Donna Britt. Donna is a person who plays the oboe and who has survived breast cancer. She donates books to school libraries, and for charity she sings outside the Walmart during the holidays. She travels the world, and she delivers the news. She is a voice of comfort to all of those in her television media market, and she loves her family. She and her husband Mark Ballard have a son and a daughter. Her daughter Annie is a scientist working in DNA research, and their son Louie is a bright, young student in high school. Donna has delivered the news in the Baton Rouge metropolitan area for 36 years. She spent her entire career, which is very unusual, at one television station--WAFB in Baton Rouge, which Donna has helped to make a powerhouse in Louisiana media. Donna has done her job so extraordinarily well that she has become a role model for young journalists--all journalists but particularly female journalists. I can tell my colleagues that folks in Baton Rouge feel Donna Britt is a part of their family. They trust her. That is because she is impartial, she is objective, and she is insightful. Since 1981, she has been on the air with the people of the Baton Rouge metropolitan area through storms, through inaugurations, through just about every major news event, good times and bad, that one can imagine. Donna also takes our people into the community and introduces them to interesting people. A few months ago, Donna realized her health wasn't what it should be. There is no definitive test for ALS, as perhaps my colleagues know. Basically, the doctors have to rule everything else out before determining that one has ALS. As she struggled to figure out why she was losing the use of her fingers and her legs, Donna didn't keep her viewers in the dark. She brought them along for the journey in frank, candid Facebook videos. Along the way, she educated them--ever the journalist--on what it is like to have a degenerative disease. At a family reunion this summer, Donna all of a sudden could not stand any longer. Now, that is a problem when you stand behind a desk to deliver the news--not for Donna. It was just another challenge to conquer. She promptly ordered a wheelchair that would adapt to her new reality. Now Donna Britt is working with Louisiana State University to prepare for the day when her respiratory and diaphragm muscles are too weak for her to vocalize what she is thinking. With LSU's help, she is putting words into a voice bank for the future. Once again, it is just another challenge for Donna Britt to conquer. I am very proud of Steve Gleason, and I am also very proud of Donna Britt. As angry as I am that anyone has to live with this dreadful disease ALS, I am proud they are inspiring an army of ALS sufferers by meeting every challenge and battling to thrive. I am proud that Steve and Donna are inspiring all of us with their valor and their courage. Thank you. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I will conclude then, Mr. President. I thank him for his time and attention. America needs a healthcare delivery system and deserves it like somebody designed the dadgum thing on purpose.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I wish I could stand here today and tell you that the Affordable Care Act, or so-called ObamaCare, had worked. I wish I could sit here and tell you today that the American people were better off as a result of the Affordable Care Act, but I can't do that, and it gives me no joy in having to make that statement. Now, as you know, Mr. President, not a single Republican voted for the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act was passed at President Obama's suggestion by the Democratic Members of the House and the Senate. They had a majority, and in this body the majority rules. I don't want to ascribe to the President or to our Democratic friends any ill motives whatsoever. They wanted what was best for the American people. It wasn't a question of bad motives. It was just a bad idea. It didn't work. Let me say this another way. I believe that President Obama and our colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle in the Senate and in the House of Representatives passed ObamaCare with the best of intentions. But, you know what, Mr. President--I know you also happen to be a physician--150 years ago, doctors used to bleed their patients with the best of intentions, and they stopped doing that. They did it. They didn't have any bad motives in doing it. They did it because they thought it would help the patient. It killed many of them. So they stopped doing it. You know we were told when the Affordable Care Act, so-called ObamaCare--I don't mean any disrespect in calling it ObamaCare. President Obama himself refers to it as ObamaCare. When the Democrats in the Congress passed ObamaCare, I remember well what we were told because I wanted to believe it. The President said: If you like your insurance plan, you can keep your insurance plan. I think he meant that at the time. It wasn't true. It turned out not to be true. The President said: If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. I think that is what he wanted, but you couldn't. He said the Affordable Care Act would ``cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year.'' It is not even close. President Obama said ObamaCare would ``bend the cost curve for healthcare'' without adding ``one dime to the deficit.'' None of that was true. I think the President meant it at the time. I think he wanted it at the time. I know I did. I know you did, Mr. President. But it just turned out not to be true. Now, the simple fact of the matter is--and I think every reasonable person has to conclude--that the Affordable Care Act has not worked for the American people. Let's talk about the exchanges. As you know, Mr. President, there are two parts of the Affordable Care Act. There are the exchanges through which people go and buy insurance directly from an insurance company, and then there is the Medicaid expansion. I want to talk about the exchanges for a moment. In 2016, under ObamaCare, we started out with 281 insurance companies offering insurance to the American people. That is a good start. The problem is that now we have 141, and they are dropping like flies. In my State of Louisiana we are down to three. A third of all of the counties in America have only one choice--one insurance company that will still write insurance--and many of our counties have zero, none, nada, zilch. They can't get insurance at all. They have been given a bus ticket, but there is no bus. As for Louisiana, let me talk just for a moment about my State--our State--Mr. President. In Louisiana, premiums have gone up 123 percent on the exchanges since 2013. That is an average of a $3,600 increase per plan. Nationwide, the average ObamaCare plan now costs 105 percent more than when it started. That is $3,000 per person. What is particularly incredible to me, Mr. President--you know these statistics better than I do--in Louisiana we have 136,000 people who, rather than buying insurance off the exchanges, have chosen to pay the fine. Let me say that again: 136,000 people in my State have looked at the insurance offered to them, with the subsidies, and have said: We would rather pay the fine. Of that 136,000 who said they would pick the fine instead of the insurance, 84 percent of them make $50,000 or less, 48 percent of them, or half, make $25,000 or less. Now, do you know what that tells me? That tells me that 136,000 people in my State, most of whom are too poor to be sick, looked at the Affordable Care Act plan and said: We can't afford it. We would rather pay the fine. We are better off paying the fine. So they are out of pocket the money for the fine, and they still don't have insurance. No reasonable person would call that a success. Let me give a couple more examples because we talk around here in concepts, and we all know what we are talking about, but average Americans who get up every day and go to work, who obey the law and pay their taxes, who try to do the right things for their kids and try to save money for retirement do not have time to deal in concepts. They are too busy earning a living. They just want to know: What kind of health insurance do I have, and what is it going to cost? So let me give some examples right now from Louisiana. This is brought to you by the Affordable Care Act. Let's suppose that I am a 60-year-old, nonsmoking male who is living in Baton Rouge, LA. I am making $50,000 a year. According to healthcare.gov--I did not make this up--the cheapest and most basic plan available to me would cost me $689.14 a month, with a $4,500 deductible, for a grand total of $9,000 a year--deductibles, my out-of- pocket, plus my premiums. Now, I am 60 years old. I am living in Baton Rouge, LA, where the cost of living is not that high, and I am making $50,000. The Federal Government has said: We have a great deal for you. Give us $9,000, and then we might be able to give you some healthcare. For that $9,000, what do I get? Suppose I say: OK. Here is my $9,000. I don't know where I am going to find it, as I am only making $50,000 a year, and, of course, the government is taking some of that for taxes, but I find $9,000 a year. Do you know what I get? I get four doctor visits, I get two lab tests, and I get nine prescription drugs and additional medical costs for a grand total of $100. That is not insurance; that is giving somebody a bus ticket without a bus. All right. Let's suppose that I am a 50-year-old female. I don't smoke. I am living in Lafayette, LA, which is to the west of Baton Rouge. I am making $50,000 over in Lafayette. The most basic plan in Lafayette--once again, I am 50 years old. So I am not 60 now; I am 50 years old, a female, and I don't smoke. The most basic plan, the cheapest plan I could get would cost me $450 a month in premiums, with a $4,800 deductible, for a grand total of $6,550. So I have to go into my pocket for $6,550 before I can get any kind of health insurance. That is not health insurance. I would remind the Presiding Officer, as he is a physician who has been on the frontlines in caring for people in our charity hospital system in Louisiana--and God bless him for that--that the options I describe are the cheap ones. They are the most affordable ones. That is the best-case scenario. Nobody wanted this. I know President Obama did not want it to turn out this way. I know our friends on the Democratic side did not. They wanted what was best for America. It was not a bad motive; it was just a bad idea. What do we need? Everybody has his own opinion of that. That is what we are going to try to convince each other of over the next few days as we vote. I will tell you what I think we need. I think that in the healthcare delivery system, we do not need more government. I know that some of my friends on the Democratic side think they have the solution, and I respect them for all of the time and care they have put into this. Some of my friends on the Democratic side say they have the solution. Government has failed, they will admit. They do not say it very loudly, but they will privately say: We realize the government has failed with ObamaCare. Our prescription to fix it is more government, so let's go to a single-payer system. Let's have the Federal Government be in charge of everybody's healthcare, and let's let the Federal Government regulate our doctors and our nurses and our hospitals and our health insurance companies and our patients and our lab techs like they were utilities. I have lived under a system like that. England has a system like that. You can not name me a single G20 country--not one--that has a single-payer system that is working. It is not the answer. Quickly, because I am running out of time, here is what we need.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Congressman Steve Scalise; Special Agent Crystal Griner; Special Agent David Bailey; Zack Barth, a legislative aide to Congressman Roger Williams; Matt Mika, who works for Tyson Foods--those five individuals were shot today, and I am asking and saying to every American who happens to be listening to the Senate at this time: If you believe in God, please pray for them as I have and as I do. If you don't believe in God, this is America, and that is your right. Send positive thoughts their way. Like most Americans, I feel awful, I feel sad, and I feel mad. I have known Steve Scalise a long time, I don't know, 20, 25 years. He is a political friend, but he is also a personal friend. Steve works all the time. He loves his family. He will do anything for his constituents. I know that is what we always say about each other, but it is true with Steve. He loves this place. I have never seen him in a bad mood. I know he must be; he is human. But I don't think I have ever seen Steve in a bad mood. He is positive; he is can-do. Every time I go to a function, Steve is there. I don't think he ever sleeps. He does an extraordinarily good job of representing the First Congressional District of Louisiana, and this is so unfair. I wish I understood why bad things happen to good people. My thoughts and prayers, as all of our thoughts and prayers should be, are with Jennifer, Steve's lovely wife. Steve and Jennifer have two great kids, Madison and Harrison. I can't imagine what his family is going through right now. I am just so sorry. We are also praying and hoping for a quick recovery for Matt and for Zack. I thank Special Agent Griner and Special Agent Bailey. There were 30, 40, 50 Congressmen and Senators out there today. It was an open field. But for the bravery of these two special agents and other members of the Capitol Police, it would have been a turkey shoot: no cover. You have a person--that is as charitable as I can be right now--a person armed with an assault rifle and a handgun. I just want to tell those two agents and all the other law enforcement officials who support them and who keep us safe every day: Thank you so much for doing your job. We have heard--and I hope it is not true--that this was a political shooting; that this person who decided to commit these despicable acts did it because he didn't like the political persuasion of the people at whom he decided to shoot. I hope that is not true. I hope members of the media come back tonight after the Secret Service investigates and tell us that is not true. Because if it is true, this represents a new low for America. Reasonable people disagree, and you have the right under our Constitution to disagree. This is America. You can believe what you want. Within reason, you can say what you want. And most of us--I dare say, all of us in Congress--would do anything we could to protect that right. I guess you have a constitutional right to hate, if you want to. But I don't understand people who hate other people just because they don't agree with them politically. It is not only nonsensical, it is un- American. If the reports are true, it breaks my heart that this is what we have come to. I think many of us have probably seen that attitude. It has not become prevalent in America, but it certainly has become more than just a mere occurrence. I will put it that way. The internet has been an extraordinary thing for commerce and for the quality of life of all of us, but sometimes I read what people write on Facebook and I read comments. The worst are the ones where people can comment anonymously on newspaper articles. The vitriol, the hatred--I would hate to live with that much hate in my heart. Our thoughts and prayers are with Steve, Jennifer, Madison, and Harrison, and they are with Special Agent Griner, Special Agent Bailey, Zack Barth, and Matt Mika. My personal thoughts and prayers are with every American today who feels as I do, that this is just a sad, sad day for this great country. I don't know if there is any good that can come out of this, but if there is, I hope the good that does come out of this is that we will all stop and think about the things that divide us and understand it is OK to disagree. I will say it again: Reasonable people do. But you can disagree with somebody without hate. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to a member of my staff, Patrick Flanigan.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the bipartisan legislation that will reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program. I wish to speak a little bit about flood insurance first before I talk about our much needed legislation. As most people know--but unfortunately some folks don't know or maybe they forget--if you have homeowners insurance on your home and you have a flood, you are not covered. Homeowners insurance does not cover flooding. In order to be covered for flooding, you have to have a separate policy, and about the only place you can go to get flood insurance is from the Federal program--the National Flood Insurance Program. Now, that is a bit of an overstatement. It is possible to buy flood insurance from a private insurer--and certainly we want to encourage private insurers to participate more in the flood insurance market--but today, for the most part, if you want to carry flood insurance, you have to get it through the Federal program, and that is called the National Flood Insurance Program. It is administered by FEMA. It is hard to overstate the importance of flood insurance to the American people. It is even harder to overstate the importance of flood insurance to the people of Louisiana. The gross domestic product in my State is about $220 billion to $230 billion a year. If you add up all the goods and services that we as Louisianans produce every year, it comes out to between $220 billion and $230 billion. Without flood insurance, you can cut that figure in half. We would have to, in effect, turn out the lights. There are 450,000 flood insurance policies in my State. Many of those people have to have flood insurance; it is a condition of their mortgage. So the Flood insurance program and, more specifically, the National Flood Insurance Program, is extraordinarily important to America, but it is even more extraordinarily important to the people of Louisiana. We are introducing a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program. The current program expires in September. If we don't reauthorize it, most Americans who have flood insurance at the present time will no longer be able to access it. It is critical that the U.S. Congress act and act immediately. The bill we are introducing--and I will explain in a moment whom I mean by ``we''--is bipartisan legislation. Now, there are a lot of issues that divide Congress today, and reasonable people are entitled to disagree over some of these very difficult issues, but there are also issues we can come together on, and I respectfully suggest that flood insurance is one of them. We have put together a bipartisan coalition, including Senator Bob Menendez from New Jersey, who happens to be a Democrat; and Senator Cory Booker from New Jersey, who happens to be a Democrat; Senator Thad Cochran, chairman of our Appropriations Committee in the Senate, from Mississippi, who is a Republican; Senator Marco Rubio from Florida, who is a Republican; Senator Bill Nelson from Florida, who is a Democrat; Senator Van Hollen from Maryland, who happens to be a Democrat; and more Senators are coming on board. We are introducing a bill called the SAFE National Flood Insurance Program Reauthorization Act. SAFE, of course, is an acronym. It refers to sustainable, affordable, fair, and efficient--SAFE--the SAFE National Flood Insurance Program Reauthorization Act. Let me briefly tell my colleagues what it does. I will start with cost. It doesn't do a bit of good to offer someone insurance if they can't afford it, and too many times that has been the case with flood insurance. Right now, under the current program, the National Flood Insurance Program is allowed to raise a homeowner's flood insurance premium by 18 percent--not 10 percent, not 12 percent but by a staggering 18 percent--and to do that every year. If you are insuring a second home--let's suppose you have a vacation home--or if you are a businesswoman or a businessman and insuring a commercial establishment, the national program can raise your premiums every year by 25 percent. Nobody can pay those kinds of increases. No. 1, our bill would cap the amount the Flood Insurance Program can raise someone's premium at 10 percent annually. I wish we could tap it at zero percent annually, but 10 percent is certainly a lot better for our people than 18 percent and 25 percent, respectively. If FEMA properly implements some other provisions of our act, which I will talk about in a moment, there will not be any increases. No. 2, our bill, the SAFE National Flood Insurance Program Reauthorization Act, would extend the National Flood Insurance Program by 6 years. I wish we could extend it longer. I wish we could do 10 years or 15 years or 20 years, but it is necessary for us, as the Presiding Officer knows, to get unified, bipartisan support on this legislation, and we think 6 years--a 6-year authorization is probably the best we can do to pass this bill. No. 3, our bill will save about $750 million a year. Let me say that again. Our bill will save about $750 million each and every year to be used in the Flood Insurance Program. Here is how our legislation would do it. First, as we know, the Flood Insurance Program has a deficit. We have had a large number of natural disasters, including floods, over the past several years in our country, unfortunately. We had Hurricane Sandy. We had Hurricane Katrina. In my State in Louisiana, last year we had two horrible floods, both in the northern part of my State and in the southern part of my State. In a couple of instances, we had 23 inches of rain in 2 days. I don't care if you live on Mount Everest, if you get 23 inches of rain in 2 days, you are going to flood. Those floods were very expensive. Those catastrophes and many others caused the National Flood Insurance Program to operate at a deficit. The deficit is $25 billion. Another way of stating that is, the program owes $25 billion in debt, but we owe it to ourselves. We don't owe it to a bank, we don't owe it to a foreign country, we don't owe it to any private entity; we owe it to ourselves, and we have been paying interest to ourselves out of the premiums--the cashflow, if you will--of the Flood Insurance Program every year. That 10 percent--10 cents out of every dollar that comes into the National Flood Insurance Program--is devoted to just paying the interest on this debt that we owe ourselves. Our bill would suspend those interest payments for 6 years. That will free up about $400 million a year. We are also saving money by asking those who work with us in implementing the National Flood Insurance Program to sharpen their pencils. Let me explain what I mean by that. FEMA is in charge of the National Flood Insurance Program, but FEMA doesn't run the program. It doesn't run the insurance company that administers the policies. FEMA hires private insurers in the private sector to actually run the program. We call that the ``write your own'' program. For the most part, those private insurers that administer the program do a good job, but they don't have any risk. They have zero risk, none, nada. The risk is on the National Flood Insurance Program--the Federal government--and therefore the American taxpayer. We just hire the private insurers to administer the program--to collect the premiums, to sell the policies, to adjust the claims. So they have no risk. Yet we are paying them 31 cents out of every dollar that the program would take in. Our bill respectfully suggests that is too much money. While we appreciate the cooperation we get and the good work we get from the private insurers who help us administer this program, we are going to ask them--actually, we are going to tell them--to reduce their compensation from 31 cents out of every dollar. That is going to save about $350 million a year. So we just saved about $750 million a year for the National Flood Insurance Program. What are we going to do with the money? First, mitigation. With flooding--and it is inevitable that we are going to have floods. I don't know why bad things happen to good people, but they do. You can pay a little bit up front or you can pay a whole lot later, and this is what I mean by that. If we spend the money on mitigation to protect against the flooding that we know will inevitably happen, we will save money for the American taxpayer in the long run, and we will use a portion of that $750 million in savings to mitigate against flood risk. By mitigation, I mean offering low- or no-interest loans to homeowners to elevate their homes so they will not flood--building levees, building flood walls. Our bill does not say specifically what mitigation measures should be taken, and it does not say which mitigation projects will be built, but it does say that mitigation is the answer, not the complete answer but part of the answer. We haven't done enough of it. Now we are going to have the resources to do it. The second way we are going to use that money is to try to do a better job with maps. We set rates in the National Flood Insurance Program based on the likelihood that someone will be flooded. We determine that likelihood by using maps drawn by experts using computer models. We are not using the most up-to-date, state-of-the-art technology to draw those maps, but if our bill passes, we will, including but not limited to a new technology called LIDAR. I confess, I don't understand the technology, but it is called LIDAR, Light Detection and Ranging technology. It can be used to draw more accurate flood maps to more accurately assess someone's propensity to flood. Why is that important? You might be in a high-risk flood zone right now and paying a large premium. With state-of-the-art technology, you may be put into a lower risk flood zone and pay less. I am not guaranteeing that result, but it is certainly possible. In any event, we need to as accurately as possible assess the risk, and the only way to do that is through proper mapping. Our bill would also include a provision that will allow Congress to provide better and greater oversight of FEMA in administering the program. Let me say specifically what it will do. The very able Administrator at FEMA who handles the Flood Insurance Program testified before the Banking Committee a few months ago that if one of these private insurance companies that administers the Flood Insurance Program for us has lawyers or consultants who are not doing their jobs, FEMA doesn't have the authority to fire them. This bill will give FEMA the authority to fire those consultants, and here is why this is important: Most of the lawyers, engineers, and other consultants private insurance companies hire to help them administer the program on behalf of the National Flood Insurance Program do a pretty good job, but some of them do not. There have been recorded instances both in New Jersey and in Louisiana where certain people, engineers and lawyers, have seen it as their mission to do anything they possibly can to keep a homeowner who has paid his or her hard- earned money to buy insurance from getting the money they deserve if they flood, and that is just wrong. If you are trying to defraud the National Flood Insurance Program, we need to fight you like a tiger. But if you have paid your premiums and, unfortunately, you have flooded, you are entitled to get your money. You should not be required to fight some engineer or some lawyer who is throwing up obstacle after obstacle after obstacle. Our bill says that if there are consultants who do that and the private insurance companies don't want to fire them, then, by God, FEMA will, and we are going to hold FEMA accountable. A couple more points I will mention: This bill will also extend coverage limits. Right now, the most flood insurance a homeowner can buy is $250,000. While that is a lot of money, that doesn't cover some homes, given the rate of inflation in America today, and our bill would expand coverage limits to $500,000 for homes and $1.5 million for commercial establishments. I have talked to some of my colleagues in the Senate and in the House, and some of them, whom I am happy for, represent States that haven't had any major floods, and I hope they never do. But if we have learned anything in the last few years in terms of flooding, we have learned that just when men and women think they can control everything in this world and can control their destiny, they can't control God and Mother Nature. Flooding can happen at any time. Let me say it again. You can live in a mountain State. You can live on top of a mountain. But if you get 23 inches of rain in 2 days, you are going to flood, and that is why you need flood insurance. That is why this bill is not just important to coastal States like Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, New Jersey, and Maryland; it is important to all Americans. This is a bipartisan bill. Have I mentioned that? I think I did. This is a bipartisan bill. It is supported by many Democrats. It is supported by many Republicans. It is a bill that is not only important for our economy, but it is important for the peace of mind of the American people. I hope we will not let politics get in the way of doing what we know to be right. Once again, the bill is called the SAFE--which stands for Sustainable, Affordable, Fair, and Efficient--National Flood Insurance Program Reauthorization Act. I hope this body will come together as one and support this much needed legislation. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have 6 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 6, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., in open session, to receive testimony on the posture of the Department of the Air Force in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2018 and the future years defense program. Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 6, 2017, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing to consider the following nominations: Mr. Kevin Allen Hassett, to be Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers; and the Honorable Pamela Hughes Patenaude, to be Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to hold a Business Meeting on Tuesday, June 6, 2017, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in Room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 6, 2017, at 10 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing. Select Committee on Intelligence The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the 115th Congress of the U.S. Senate on Tuesday, June 6, 2017, at 3 p.m., in room SH-219 of the Senate Hart Office Building. Subcommittee on Seapower The Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 6, 2017, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, thank you and Senator Cassidy. We just came back, as we all know, from the Memorial Day recess. I wanted today not to only reflect on that but also to reflect on our anniversary of D-day and the day that our Allies invaded France in 1944. In doing so today, I would like to speak and pay tribute to all of those-- including, but not limited to, Americans, but especially Americans--who risked their lives to defend our freedoms. In particular, I come today to recognize a special group of dedicated soldiers. You probably have not heard of them, but they are referred to as the Ghost Army--the Ghost Army. This is a unit that served in World War II. It was comprised of the 23rd Headquarters Special Troops and the 3133rd Signal Service Company. The personnel of this U.S. Army unit were handpicked. They were handpicked for their artistic and creative characteristics, and you will see why in just a moment. They handled top secret information, and they were among some of America's most promising artists, engineers, and signals professionals. The mission of the Ghost Army was very simple: Fool Adolph Hitler--fool Adolph Hitler by using what was called tactical deception. The Ghost Army's deceptive creation of fake battles, inflatable tanks, theatrical props, and other inventive equipment falsified troop movements, and had our enemies chasing ghosts--hence the name the Ghost Army. Beginning in Normandy 2 weeks after D-day and ending in the Rhine River Valley, the Ghost Army staged over 20 fake battles--fake battlefield deceptions. The German Army did not know whether they were coming or going, thanks to the Ghost Army. These performances, of course, were illusions. They were called illusions by the soldiers. They occurred in the most dangerous spot in the war, on the frontline of battle. Now, without the Ghost Army's dedication and fearless perseverance, Allied successes at the Battle of the Bulge and the final battles in Po Valley, Italy, would not have been possible. The 23rd unit was composed of only 1,184 men--1,200 men. They put themselves at risk every day at the forefront of danger, and they fought tirelessly. They used ingenious, innovative methods to mislead the enemy, ultimately leading the Allies to many victories in Europe. Because of their bravery, because of the bravery of the 1,200 men in the Ghost Army, up to 30,000 American soldiers and 10,000 German soldiers were able to return home alive. So why are we waiting until today to honor these 1,184 brave Americans? Because until recently the Ghost Army's mission was classified. It was top secret. Nobody except the members of the Ghost Army knew anything about it. This has finally changed. That is one of the reasons I am here today. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Ghost Army soldier bill, a bipartisan effort led by Senators Markey, Collins, and King. This long overdue legislation will award a Congressional Gold Medal to the 23rd Headquarters Special Troops and the 3133rd Signal Service Company. It is a privilege to share that, in my home State of Louisiana, the Ghost Army is being recognized at the New Orleans Museum of Art. Soldier's art is on display depicting many watercolor portraits, as well as graphite portraits, of civilians, soldiers, and refugees during World War II. It is a legacy that our great State now gets to honor. Specifically, I want to recognize six brave men from Louisiana, my State, who were members of the Ghost Army. Hilton Howell Railey of New Orleans is a prominent journalist and the author of ``Touch'd with Madness.'' He recruited several of the handpicked 23rd. Mr. Railey trained and deployed the 3133rd Signal Service Company, which served in Italy. There is Jim Stegg of New Orleans, a longtime faculty member at Tulane. He was an artist; in fact, there is a retrospective of his work at the New Orleans Museum of Art's Ghost Army exhibit. Also, there is Mr. Murphy P. Martin, of St. Martinville, LA; Mr. Thomas L. Raggio, of Lake Charles, LA; Mr. Roy L. Ravia, of Calcasieu Parish, in my State; Mr. Alvin J. Picard, of Vermilion Parish; and last but certainly not least, Mr. Anderson B. Wilson, of Slidell, LA. Unfortunately, Mr. Wilson is the only Ghost Army solder still alive in Louisiana. I had the rare privilege and the rare honor of speaking with Mr. Wilson this morning. In December of 1943, President Roosevelt authorized the Ghost Army unit. Only 2 weeks later, in January 1944, Mr. Wilson was on his way to Camp Mack Morris, TN, to join the Ghost Army. Who says the Federal Government can't move quickly when it wants to? Mr. Wilson trained there until May, when his unit was shipped out of New York to Liverpool, England. It was the largest convoy that at the time had ever crossed the Atlantic Ocean. From there, Mr. Wilson and his team traveled more than any other unit. From England they went to France. They went to Belgium. They went to Holland. They went to Luxembourg, and they went to Germany. Mr. Wilson and his comrades fought fearlessly through the war's end as members of the Ghost Army. In July 1945, Mr. Wilson finally came home. However, while he came home safely, he could not even disclose, he couldn't even talk about--even to his own family--the honorable service unit he was a part of. Now, it is humbling to me to hear a man's sacrifice, to go through what he went through and not even be able to talk about it with his family, but he kept his word out of honor to his country. The willingness of Mr. Wilson and his fellow soldiers to risk their own lives to defend the freedom we have today--well, it, too, is humbling. Mr. Wilson returned home in 1945. And I hope he is listening right now. He has been a little under the weather. He was in the hospital when I spoke to him today. It wasn't until the 1990s, when Mr. Wilson was married with two grown children, that he could ever talk about his service to this great country, share his stories, share his experiences, share his fight to keep the freedoms all of us take for granted every day. Mr. Wilson's story only gives a snapshot of the sacrifices and honorable work these men of the Ghost Army gave to the Allied forces victory. And I, for one--and I know all Americans join me--thank them for their service and for the freedoms they protected. I am proud of this Ghost Army legislation, and I hope to see it move forward and pass so that these fine Americans can receive the recognition they have long deserved. God bless the members of the Ghost Army. And if you are listening, Mr. Wilson, God bless you.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if I came to you today and told you we had received a job application from somebody to work for the government, and you and I looked at her job application and we saw she had graduated from Harvard Law School, if we looked at her job application and we saw she had worked for a Presidential campaign, if we saw she had practiced law in the private sector, if we noticed from her resume that she had actually worked as a counsel, as a lawyer, in the White House, if we saw she had clerked for a Supreme Court Justice, Justice Anthony Kennedy--each Justice of the United States, I think, has four law clerks every year. I don't know how many tens of thousands of lawyers and law students apply, but to be chosen is one of the highest honors you can receive as a young lawyer. If I told you this person who applied for a job in government used to work at the Department of Justice as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Policy, if I told you she had also worked for one of the most prestigious law firms in the country, Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale & Dorr--I remember them as Wilmer, Cutler, but they have changed their name since then. They have been around forever. If I told you all of those things, I think any reasonable person would say: Wow, let's hire her here immediately. Let's do it before she finds another position. Well, that person has applied for a job in government. Her name is Rachel Brand. She has been nominated by President Trump to be Associate Attorney General. That is a position that is vitally important within the Department of Justice. It is responsible for the oversight of the Civil Division, the Civil Rights Division, the Office on Violence Against Women, and many other important components of the Department of Justice. I think no matter what political party you happen to be in or whatever your political persuasion, we can all agree that right now it is particularly important not only to have a Department of Justice that is fully staffed but to have it fully staffed with extraordinarily qualified people whom every American can look at and go: Wow, is she qualified. I am so pleased she is working for the Federal Government and my tax dollars are being well spent. Ms. Brand has broad experience, as I indicated, both within the Department of Justice and in the private sector. As I indicated--I am going to say it again--she worked for Justice Anthony Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court. Wow, what an honor. She has served as Assistant Attorney General under President George Bush. She has been in private practice, as I indicated. She has been chief counsel for Regulatory Litigation in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and I could go on and on and on. I fully support Ms. Brand's nomination. I sit on the Judiciary Committee, the committee of the Senate that vetted her. She is highly respected, she is whip smart, she is well qualified, and she is fully prepared to hit the ground running. That is exactly what we need. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to talk today about the need for a work requirement in our Medicaid Program. In 1969, President Lyndon Johnson addressed the American people, and he talked about breaking the cycle of poverty. This is what President Johnson said: I believe . . . that the key to success in this effort is jobs. It is work for people who want to work. President Johnson, as we know, was a Democrat. He fervently believed that the people of Louisiana didn't want handouts. Most people want a chance to support themselves. President Johnson also believed that Medicaid, as originally envisioned, would be a safety net for the disabled, the elderly, and people with small children. Medicaid is not exactly that; it is dramatically different. Whether you agree or disagree with what has happened to Medicaid, the fact is that it has turned into a health insurance program for about 20 percent of all Americans. Think about that. We have roughly 320 million people in our country, and fully 25 percent are on Medicaid. It gets bigger and bigger every year, and it gets more expensive every year. You can see that the numbers speak for themselves. You can see the trend. You can certainly see that we started in 1966, and you can particularly see the trend beginning in 1996 and its trajectory. It also became more expensive. The cost of our Medicaid Program in 1966 was $1 billion. That is a lot of money. This is the cost of last year: $576 billion and climbing. Let me talk about our State alone. In Louisiana, the cost of Medicaid has increased from $5.9 billion in 2008 to $10.7 billion today, and 65 percent of all of the babies born in Louisiana every year now are born on Medicaid. Think about that. We know that Medicaid is a Federal-State program. The Federal Government puts up some of the money; the State puts up some of the money, as well. In Louisiana, we put up about one-third of the money. In Louisiana dollars, in 2008, we were putting up $1.7 billion in State money. It is called the match for the Medicaid Program. Today, the State of Louisiana is paying $3.3 billion. You can do the math. That is about a 10 percent increase every year. If we are spending $3.3 billion of State money, that means every year, just like clockwork, we have to come up with an extra $330 million. I can tell you where that money comes from. It comes out of public schools, it comes out of universities, it comes out of our budget for roads, and it comes out of our budget for public safety. We have a choice in America. Either Medicaid is going to be, as we originally envisioned it, a safety net for the old, the disabled, and mothers with babies or it is going to be a health insurance program for the masses. If the American people and Congress decide that Medicaid is going to be a health insurance program for the general population, then it needs to operate as health insurance does in the private sector. In other words, able-bodied adult enrollees in Medicaid should be required to work in order to receive their benefits, if they are able. I am filing a bill that is going to be entitled the ``Medicaid Reform and Personal Responsibility Act of 2017.'' It is going to create a work requirement for Medicaid. My reason is simple. I want Americans to prosper. I don't want our people to remain mired in poverty. I want to break poverty's back by creating a system that doesn't force the American people to subsist on handouts from government, and the best way to do that is to provide an incentive for able-bodied Americans to know the dignity of work because a person without a job is neither happy, nor is he free. I think my bill is a commonsense approach to reducing America's reliance on entitlement programs. The work requirement will be very simple. It will be similar to the program that we have in place--the work requirement we have in place right now for food stamps. This is what my bill would require: If you are on Medicaid or want to receive Medicaid, and you are an adult between the ages of 18 and 55, and you are able-bodied, you are not disabled, and you don't have any dependents, you don't have any children--so if you are 18 to 55, you are not disabled, and you don't have any children, then in order to receive Medicaid or to continue to receive Medicaid, you have to either work 20 hours a week--not 40 hours a week but 20 hours a week--you have to look for a job or you have to go back to school if you don't want to work. Or if you don't want to go back to school or you don't want to look for a job or you don't want to get a job, you have to perform community service for 20 hours a week. My goal is to get people off Medicaid and into the workforce, so they can support themselves and not need Medicaid. I don't want to take Medicaid away from people in need. I do want fewer people to need Medicaid. So if you are disabled, if you are pregnant, if you are elderly, if you are caring for a child, my bill doesn't apply to you. I am not talking about telling a mother with a baby in her arms that she has to go find a job, and I am not going to ask an elderly person in a nursing home to leave the nursing home and go get a job in order to receive Medicaid. All my bill says is that if you are young by today's standards, between 18 and 55, you are able- bodied and you have no children or dependents, then you have to go get a job or you have to go to school or you have to perform community service. I want to be very clear about something else. In my State, we have a lot of flood victims. We had terrible flooding last year. In my State, Louisiana, we have a depression in the oil and gas industry; indeed, we do throughout America, and I know we do in the great State of Alaska as well. I am not looking to add to their hurt. I am working very hard, as are you, Mr. President, to put our oilfield workers back to work and to get our flood victims the assistance they need to recover from the tragedy that has befallen them. This bill is not about them. This bill is about able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 55 who have no dependents and who have been unemployed for years, in many cases, by their own choosing. Our country has grown a lot and evolved a lot since Medicaid was introduced in 1965. We now face new challenges, both at home and abroad. We know that. Medicaid has grown, as well, but it hasn't evolved in a positive way, in my opinion. Just 3 years after Medicaid was founded, we knew we were going to have a problem finding the money, given the exponential growth in the program, and more than 50 years later, it is way past time to do something about it. We have to break the back of poverty. This is not about throwing people out into the cold. This is about helping them to know that they can get work because the best program--the best social program in the entire world is a job. By implementing a work requirement for able- bodied adults, Medicaid will evolve to the next logical step. Our goal ought to be to ensure, of course, that people are healthy. That is what Medicaid exists for, but if you are healthy, then the next step is to help you join the workforce. The simple fact is, this is nothing new or extraordinary. We already have work requirements--required by acts of this Congress--for unemployment assistance, for welfare benefits, for subsidized housing, and for food stamps. Now, these requirements have been a success. We all know that, not just for stemming the costs of those programs but also for helping people--helping Americans build careers. Yet we do not have a requirement--a work requirement--for Medicaid. If my bill passes, we will. Work requirements exist because these programs are supposed to be safety nets. That is what a social program is, a safety net. They are not supposed to exist to permanently support you if you can support yourself. Our social programs in America are meant to be bridges. In way too many respects, they have become parking lots. Medicaid costs are not just a national problem. The program's expansion is clipping the wings of States like Louisiana and like Alaska because, as I pointed out, the States have to put up a substantial amount of the money. We are becoming a country in which people subsist instead of thrive because they don't know the rewards of work. We have become a country in which poverty is a way of life for way too many people. That is just sad. More than 50 years after Medicaid began, it is time to break the back of poverty once and for all. We can start with a work requirement for Medicaid. Thank you.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to talk today about the need for a work requirement in our Medicaid Program. In 1969, President Lyndon Johnson addressed the American people, and he talked about breaking the cycle of poverty. This is what President Johnson said: I believe . . . that the key to success in this effort is jobs. It is work for people who want to work. President Johnson, as we know, was a Democrat. He fervently believed that the people of Louisiana didn't want handouts. Most people want a chance to support themselves. President Johnson also believed that Medicaid, as originally envisioned, would be a safety net for the disabled, the elderly, and people with small children. Medicaid is not exactly that; it is dramatically different. Whether you agree or disagree with what has happened to Medicaid, the fact is that it has turned into a health insurance program for about 20 percent of all Americans. Think about that. We have roughly 320 million people in our country, and fully 25 percent are on Medicaid. It gets bigger and bigger every year, and it gets more expensive every year. You can see that the numbers speak for themselves. You can see the trend. You can certainly see that we started in 1966, and you can particularly see the trend beginning in 1996 and its trajectory. It also became more expensive. The cost of our Medicaid Program in 1966 was $1 billion. That is a lot of money. This is the cost of last year: $576 billion and climbing. Let me talk about our State alone. In Louisiana, the cost of Medicaid has increased from $5.9 billion in 2008 to $10.7 billion today, and 65 percent of all of the babies born in Louisiana every year now are born on Medicaid. Think about that. We know that Medicaid is a Federal-State program. The Federal Government puts up some of the money; the State puts up some of the money, as well. In Louisiana, we put up about one-third of the money. In Louisiana dollars, in 2008, we were putting up $1.7 billion in State money. It is called the match for the Medicaid Program. Today, the State of Louisiana is paying $3.3 billion. You can do the math. That is about a 10 percent increase every year. If we are spending $3.3 billion of State money, that means every year, just like clockwork, we have to come up with an extra $330 million. I can tell you where that money comes from. It comes out of public schools, it comes out of universities, it comes out of our budget for roads, and it comes out of our budget for public safety. We have a choice in America. Either Medicaid is going to be, as we originally envisioned it, a safety net for the old, the disabled, and mothers with babies or it is going to be a health insurance program for the masses. If the American people and Congress decide that Medicaid is going to be a health insurance program for the general population, then it needs to operate as health insurance does in the private sector. In other words, able-bodied adult enrollees in Medicaid should be required to work in order to receive their benefits, if they are able. I am filing a bill that is going to be entitled the ``Medicaid Reform and Personal Responsibility Act of 2017.'' It is going to create a work requirement for Medicaid. My reason is simple. I want Americans to prosper. I don't want our people to remain mired in poverty. I want to break poverty's back by creating a system that doesn't force the American people to subsist on handouts from government, and the best way to do that is to provide an incentive for able-bodied Americans to know the dignity of work because a person without a job is neither happy, nor is he free. I think my bill is a commonsense approach to reducing America's reliance on entitlement programs. The work requirement will be very simple. It will be similar to the program that we have in place--the work requirement we have in place right now for food stamps. This is what my bill would require: If you are on Medicaid or want to receive Medicaid, and you are an adult between the ages of 18 and 55, and you are able-bodied, you are not disabled, and you don't have any dependents, you don't have any children--so if you are 18 to 55, you are not disabled, and you don't have any children, then in order to receive Medicaid or to continue to receive Medicaid, you have to either work 20 hours a week--not 40 hours a week but 20 hours a week--you have to look for a job or you have to go back to school if you don't want to work. Or if you don't want to go back to school or you don't want to look for a job or you don't want to get a job, you have to perform community service for 20 hours a week. My goal is to get people off Medicaid and into the workforce, so they can support themselves and not need Medicaid. I don't want to take Medicaid away from people in need. I do want fewer people to need Medicaid. So if you are disabled, if you are pregnant, if you are elderly, if you are caring for a child, my bill doesn't apply to you. I am not talking about telling a mother with a baby in her arms that she has to go find a job, and I am not going to ask an elderly person in a nursing home to leave the nursing home and go get a job in order to receive Medicaid. All my bill says is that if you are young by today's standards, between 18 and 55, you are able- bodied and you have no children or dependents, then you have to go get a job or you have to go to school or you have to perform community service. I want to be very clear about something else. In my State, we have a lot of flood victims. We had terrible flooding last year. In my State, Louisiana, we have a depression in the oil and gas industry; indeed, we do throughout America, and I know we do in the great State of Alaska as well. I am not looking to add to their hurt. I am working very hard, as are you, Mr. President, to put our oilfield workers back to work and to get our flood victims the assistance they need to recover from the tragedy that has befallen them. This bill is not about them. This bill is about able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 55 who have no dependents and who have been unemployed for years, in many cases, by their own choosing. Our country has grown a lot and evolved a lot since Medicaid was introduced in 1965. We now face new challenges, both at home and abroad. We know that. Medicaid has grown, as well, but it hasn't evolved in a positive way, in my opinion. Just 3 years after Medicaid was founded, we knew we were going to have a problem finding the money, given the exponential growth in the program, and more than 50 years later, it is way past time to do something about it. We have to break the back of poverty. This is not about throwing people out into the cold. This is about helping them to know that they can get work because the best program--the best social program in the entire world is a job. By implementing a work requirement for able- bodied adults, Medicaid will evolve to the next logical step. Our goal ought to be to ensure, of course, that people are healthy. That is what Medicaid exists for, but if you are healthy, then the next step is to help you join the workforce. The simple fact is, this is nothing new or extraordinary. We already have work requirements--required by acts of this Congress--for unemployment assistance, for welfare benefits, for subsidized housing, and for food stamps. Now, these requirements have been a success. We all know that, not just for stemming the costs of those programs but also for helping people--helping Americans build careers. Yet we do not have a requirement--a work requirement--for Medicaid. If my bill passes, we will. Work requirements exist because these programs are supposed to be safety nets. That is what a social program is, a safety net. They are not supposed to exist to permanently support you if you can support yourself. Our social programs in America are meant to be bridges. In way too many respects, they have become parking lots. Medicaid costs are not just a national problem. The program's expansion is clipping the wings of States like Louisiana and like Alaska because, as I pointed out, the States have to put up a substantial amount of the money. We are becoming a country in which people subsist instead of thrive because they don't know the rewards of work. We have become a country in which poverty is a way of life for way too many people. That is just sad. More than 50 years after Medicaid began, it is time to break the back of poverty once and for all. We can start with a work requirement for Medicaid. Thank you.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have 10 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: committee on aging The Special Committee on Aging is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Aging With Community: Building Connections that Last a Lifetime.'' committee on commerce, science, and transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to hold a meeting during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, at 10 a.m. in Room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. committee on environment and public works The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, at 10 a.m. in Room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Improving America's Transportation Infrastructure: The Road Forward.'' committee on foreign relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, at 2 p.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Nominations.'' committee on homeland security The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, at 10 a.m. for a business meeting. committee on indian affairs The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, in Room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a business meeting. The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, in Room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct an oversight hearing on ``High Risk, No Reward: GAO's High Risk List for Indian Programs.'' committee on Veterans' Affairs The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, at 2:30 p.m. in SR- 418, to conduct a hearing on pending legislation. subcommittee on Airland The Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, at 3:30 p.m., in open session, to receive testimony on United States Military Small Arms Requirements. subcommittee on strategic forces The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, at 2 p.m., in open session, to receive testimony on Military Space Organization, Policy, and Programs.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as a member of the Small Business Committee, it is my pleasure to recognize Red River Brewing Company from Shreveport, LA, as the Small Business of the Day for National Small Business Week. Small businesses like Red River Brewing Company are the backbone of this country. According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, U.S. small businesses employed 56.8 million people--or 48 percent of the private workforce in 2013. Louisiana small businesses employed 903,281 people, which made up 53.5 percent of the private workforce. Red River Brewing Company, founded by entrepreneurs Jared Beville, Robert McGuire, and Beau Raines, began like many great small businesses do: as a hobby in Jared's garage. The group decided to turn their home brewing hobby into a business in the fall of 2013, becoming the first brewery in Shreveport since Prohibition. Red River is now a thriving small business that employs more than a dozen employees and offers locally brewed craft beer to the people of Shreveport, LA, and beyond. What makes their beer unique is the Louisiana twist they put on their products. The beer is designed to be indicative of the culture and climate of Louisiana. In addition, Red River often names their beers after the cultural and historic aspects of Louisiana. Session 18 IPA, for example, got its name from Louisiana being the 18th State in the United States. The fruition of hard work and passion has been the catalyst for many small businesses around the country, including Red River Brewing Company. Those who are able to create successful small businesses create economic stability for their families and their communities, and in doing so, they are carrying out the American dream. I would like to extend my sincerest congratulations to Red River Brewing Company on being recognized during the 2017 National Small Business Week. You make our great State proud, and I look forward to seeing your future success.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an issue of extraordinary importance to the people of Louisiana and to many Americans. Yet again, Americans are witnessing a dramatic, rumor-filled guessing game. I am not talking about the latest new release from Netflix, I am talking about the reauthorization of the extremely important National Flood Insurance Program--we call it the NFIP, which I can assure you has played more like an episode of ``Veep'' than ``House of Cards'' for the audience that watches it unfold every few years. I am sorry to say, Congress has repeatedly and consistently mangled the reauthorization of this essential Federal program. In 2010, the NFIP expired four times--not once, not twice but four times, for a total of 53 days, which injected uncertainty throughout a fragile housing market that had just been devastated 2 years previously. That was inexcusable. Local economies felt the sting of 1,400 home closing delays or cancellations per day that the program was expired. Now, along with many of the program's stakeholders and participants, I believe it is crucial that we avoid this type of congressionally imposed delay. Congress should extend the program. Let me say that again. Congress should extend the National Flood Insurance Program for a multiyear reauthorization before the September 30 deadline of this year. Our economy demands it. Many Americans may remember when the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act was signed into law in 2012. I was not in the Senate then. I was State Treasurer in Louisiana, but I certainly remember it. In an effort to bring the program closer to solvency after Superstorm Sandy, policyholders, as a result of Biggert-Waters, saw their premiums quickly rise to ``actuarial levels.'' For policyholders in my home State of Louisiana, this meant unaffordable levels. It doesn't do any good to offer Americans insurance they cannot afford. That is what Biggert-Waters did, just like the Affordable Care Act. FEMA's mishandling of Biggert-Waters implementation resulted in truly inaccurate rate hikes that placed the viability of the entire National Flood Insurance Program at risk. I even remember the local news stations in Louisiana, like WWL and WBRZ, broadcasting horror stories of exponential rate hikes as a result of Biggert-Waters, hitting hardest in South Louisiana's middle-class neighborhoods. Residents of St. Charles Parish and Lafourche Parish--in my State we call our counties parishes. We are the only one in America, only State in America, Louisiana, that does it. We do it right. Everybody else does it wrong. I remember residents of St. Charles Parish and Lafourche Parish sending in copies of their house keys to congressional representatives to give to FEMA because they could not afford the flood insurance. They were required to carry it. Therefore, they were just going to turn their home over. This was a sign that the government might as well take their homes because the insurance rates were so unaffordable. In this way, Biggert-Waters also made their homes unsalable. Going forward with the extension of the National Flood Insurance Program, we have to find a way to deal with the solvency of the NFIP that is responsible. At the same time, we cannot move the program from red to black entirely on the backs of policyholders. It just will not work. What do we need to do? We need to examine how FEMA spends every single dollar of premiums paid by policyholders into the system--every single dollar. We need to find solutions to improve the functionality and efficiency of the National Flood Insurance Program and to ensure that those who are mandated to carry flood insurance actually purchase flood insurance. It is clear to the policyholders in Louisiana that the NFIP has to do a better job also in one other respect. That is by giving our local officials a seat at the table. It is not written in the Constitution that flood policy and flood mapping has to originate and end with the Federal bureaucracy in Washington, DC. In fact, flood mapping and flood policy will benefit from having our local officials participate with a seat at the table. Our local levee boards and levee districts in Louisiana, along with the families who have lived on the land being insured for generations, know every single ditch, every single drainage canal from St. Tammany Parish to Terrebonne Parish. The NFIP bureaucrats ought to be asking them for guidance when rewriting flood maps and flood policy, not the other way around. Instead, our folks only get invited to the dance after all the decisions have been made in Washington, when the cow is already out of the barn. I believe this is a commonsense principle that ought to be included in legislation to ultimately extend and reform the program: give our local officials who know the land best a seat at the table, not perfunctory, a real seat at the table, to contribute to flood mapping and flood policy. The NFIP will be better for it. FEMA's mission, as we all know, is to lead America, to prepare for, prevent, respond to, and recover from disaster. That is why FEMA exists. The flood program is an extension of that mission. That is why, when consultants who work for FEMA--I am talking about contractors, I am talking about engineers, I am talking about lawyers, consultants who spend taxpayer money and are paid with taxpayer money working for FEMA, both contractors and subcontractors, if you wish to call them that, with the National Flood Insurance Program's Write Your Own Program, lose focus sometimes in helping flood victims. Let me say that again. We spend millions of taxpayer dollars through the National Flood Insurance Program paying consultants, contractors, lawyers, engineers to help administer the program and adjust claims. When it works, it is a beautiful thing. When it doesn't work, it is an unmitigated disaster and is unfair to every taxpayer who put up his or her hard-earned money and every policyholder of the National Flood Insurance Program. On occasions it has not worked. The vast majority of consultants do a fine job, but some don't. Those who have abused the program should be fired. That is why I am introducing a bill. It is called the National Flood Insurance Program Consultant Accountability Act. It is real simple. It will give the FEMA Administrator the authority to fire any consultant, contractor, lawyer, engineer, whomever, who engage in conduct detrimental to the mission of the National Flood Insurance Program. The bill will be fair. It will have an appeals process to ensure that good consultants are not penalized for being falsely accused, but this is a simple, commonsense reform that frankly should have been put in place years ago. If a consultant commits activity that in the opinion of the FEMA Administrator is detrimental to a program--for example, if he falsifies an engineering report that shows flooding caused the insured's damage, if he falsifies a report to say it didn't cause damage--then that consultant should be fired. This bill is going to give the FEMA Administrator the authority to do it. I believe the proper tools are not in place to hold government accountants accountable and to throw out bad actors. They are just not. During the Sandy recovery, major media reports claimed several firms actually altered engineering reports tied to flood insurance claims. The altered reports--engineering reports that originally said a flood caused the insured's damage and therefore the insured should be paid, those engineering reports were altered to say flooding did not contribute to the damage. These altered reports--intentionally altered--cost families the insurance payments they deserved and delayed their recovery. These were Americans who did the right thing. They bought flood insurance, and because of some consultants working for the NFIP, they were not allowed, at least initially, to recover. Only one engineering company was actually convicted of wrongdoing, but a number participated. Many of those who participated in this tomfoolery are still participating in the program and are still receiving taxpayer funding to contract with FEMA. On March 14, the head of FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program, Mr. Roy Wright, testified before the Banking Committee, on which I sit. He has testified that he can only fire contractors from participating in the National Flood Insurance Program if they are debarred, disbarred, or criminally convicted. He can't just pick up the phone and correct the situation. If he sees a consultant misbehaving, not acting in the best interest of the National Flood Insurance Program or the insured or the American taxpayer, he can't do a doggone thing about it, according to Mr. Wright's testimony, unless they are actually criminally convicted or disbarred, if they happen to be a lawyer. This bill is going to let the FEMA Administrator do something about it. There is nothing like a good firing every now and then to shake up an organization. The NFIP is responsible for administering insurance payouts for the 29,600 flood insurance claims--30,000 flood insurance claims--in my State submitted for the historic, ``once in a thousand years'' flood that occurred in Louisiana last August and last March. FEMA and its consultants and its contractors will be aiding in paying out, I hope, more than $2.4 billion in taxpayer money. Louisiana's insured and the American taxpayers need to know that these consultants can be trusted and are highly regarded by their peers. As a member of the Senate Banking Committee, I plan to include this bill and other types of commonsense reforms during the reauthorization process of the National Flood Insurance Program, and I hope to do so on a bipartisan basis. I encourage my colleagues not to play politics with this legislation. I encourage my colleagues not to play politics with the National Flood Insurance Program. It is central to the success of the American economy. Let's try to work to avoid partisan battles and develop a National Flood Insurance Program that makes sense for the policyholders and for the American taxpayer. I am not naive. I know that different coalitions and special interest groups, armed with their lobbyists, descend on the Hill. I hope we won't forget the people back home--in my hometown and in the Presiding Officer's hometown--who will feel the repercussions of our legislative actions with respect to this important program. I am very much looking forward to working with my colleagues on the Banking Committee to make this a successful reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program for the 5.5 million Americans who rely on it. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my bill, the Reforming Finance for Local Economies Act, which I introduced earlier this week. This bill is very simple and straightforward. It would exempt community banks and credit unions with assets of less than $10 billion from complying with the loan-killing, anti-jobs disaster that we commonly refer to as Dodd-Frank. Every reasonable person with a passing knowledge of our banking system knows the destabilizing effect that Dodd-Frank has had on local economies, community banks, and the Nation's credit unions. Just last week, President Trump turned to the problems wrought by Dodd-Frank by signing two Presidential memorandums to take a look at the Orderly Liquidation Authority and the systemic risk designation process at the Financial Stability Oversight Council. I applaud the President's efforts in that regard. I believe they are desperately needed. Reforming this flawed law is crucial to the future success of the American economy. Some of my colleagues were here when Dodd-Frank was passed in 2010. As we all know, it was intended to prevent another 2008-like banking crisis by strengthening Federal Government regulation of financial services. But in the process, as so often happens, Congress actually crippled America's small community banks and credit unions that played absolutely no role--none, zero, nada--in instigating the 2008 meltdown. And that is not just my opinion. Our Federal Reserve Chair, Dr. Janet Yellen, appeared before the Senate Banking Committee earlier this year--actually, February 14. When it was my turn to ask her questions, I asked her the following simple question: ``What did community banks do wrong in 2008?'' This was the Chairwoman's answer: ``Well, community banks were not the reason for the financial crisis. It was larger institutions that took risks and risks that developed outside the banking system.'' Let me read that first sentence again. Chair Yellen: ``Well, community banks were not the reason for the financial crisis.'' I believe she is right. The fact is that our smaller banks and our credit unions are smothering under the weight of Dodd-Frank. I will give you an example of what I am talking about. The Truth in Lending Act passed by Congress is actually 22 pages long. The Federal Reserve Act, setting up our Federal Reserve System, is 32 pages long. Glass- Steagall, about which we heard a great deal, was 37 pages long. Dodd- Frank is a breathtaking 2,300 pages with 22,000 pages of regulations. You can stand on the thing and paint the ceiling. That is why so many community banks no longer exist. Those that have managed to survive have seen their costs go up, their profits go down, and their ability to make small business and consumer loans curtailed-- all as a result of the unnecessary, heavy hand of government. In fact, since Dodd-Frank was passed in 2010, this country has lost 1,700 small institutions. The reason is very simple. Dodd-Frank has forced community banks and credit unions to merge, consolidate, or to go out of business because of the heavy hand of regulation and because they can't make the loans that they normally would be able to make. Nationwide, we have been losing an average of one community bank or credit union a day--every single day--since Dodd-Frank was passed because of its costs, which have driven our banks to sell or merge with larger banks. It is so ironic that this forced consolidation--forcing our smaller banks and credit unions to either merge with or be bought out by larger institutions--has caused even greater concentration of assets on the books of even larger and, in some cases, too-big-to-fail banks that Dodd-Frank was supposed to do something about. My legislation will help 5,785 American credit unions. It will help 5,461 community banks in our country survive. Specifically, financial institutions with assets of less than $10 billion--if you are a financial institution and you have less than $10 billion in assets, you will be exempt completely from Dodd-Frank, its 2,300 pages and its 22,000 pages of regulations. We are talking about a lot of banks. Banks with less than $10 billion in assets make up 92 percent of our Nation's banks, according to the FDIC. Banks with less than $10 billion in assets provide 48 percent of all small business loans, 16 percent of residential mortgages, 44 percent of lending to purchase farmland, 43 percent of lending for farm operations, and 35 percent of commercial real estate loans. If my bill passes, these institutions will no longer have to reduce their products and service offerings in order to divert resources to compliance, to interpretation, and to execution. The expertise of our smaller banks and credit unions in America in evaluating risk will no longer be reduced to some algorithm--some mathematical exercise. Instead, our institutions will be able to deliver the desperately needed capital to the customers they know so well because that is what community banks and credit unions do. They take in local deposits, and they make loans to local borrowers whom they know and whose creditworthiness they can closely monitor because community bankers, as we all know, are relationship bankers. They don't participate in widespread subprime lending. They don't use derivatives to speculate, and they never did. Most of them have fewer than 100 employees. The type of regulation they need--and I am not suggesting they don't need regulation. What I am suggesting is the type of regulation they need--because of the risks our small institutions take--is much different than the regulation needed by a $700 billion or a trillion-dollar bank. I am certain that the proponents of Dodd-Frank were well-intentioned when they wrote and passed it. But 150 years ago, doctors used to bleed their patients with the best of intentions. They stopped doing that because their patients died. That is why I suggest today that we eliminate Dodd-Frank for our smaller institutions. Making Dodd-Frank applicable to community banks and credit unions is a lot like using a sledgehammer to go after a gnat. It is way over the top. Now, certainly our smaller institutions need regulation. Certainly, they need regulation to ensure that they are stable and secure. Our small institutions know that. They know they need it. They want it. They welcome it. But even after my bill becomes law, community banks are still going to be subject to a strict regulatory scheme established by dozens of applicable Federal statutes. I am talking about the Banking Secrecy Act, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, the Truth in Lending Act, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and I could go on and on. All of these statutes will still apply to our smaller banks and credit unions. Our smaller banks and credit unions--now exempt, if my bill passes, from Dodd-Frank--will still be under the supervision of the Federal Reserve. They will still be under the supervision of the Comptroller of the Currency. They will still be regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, and even the Department of Justice. America's smaller lending institutions need some relief. What they need is relief from the destabilizing consequences of Dodd-Frank. The Reforming Finance for Local Economies Act, in my estimation, is a step in that direction. I would also like to say, in closing, that I am pleased that both President Trump and Senate Republicans are committed, as we are, to paving the way for new businesses and the jobs they create through regulatory reform as our actions have already proven this year. However, I would also like to stress that helping our community banks and credit unions is a bipartisan issue and one that I hope will garner support from many of my colleagues, not only just on the Republican side of my aisle but by friends on the Democratic side of the aisle. I welcome their support. I look forward to working with my fellow Senators on the Banking Committee to find some commonsense solutions that will help grow our local economies. I yield the floor.