[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 158 (Thursday, September 28, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4733-S4739]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     SECURING GROWTH AND ROBUST LEADERSHIP IN AMERICAN AVIATION ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). The clerk will report the bill.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3935) to amend title 49, United States Code, 
     to reauthorize and improve the Federal Aviation 
     Administration and other civil aviation programs, and for 
     other purposes.


                           Amendment No. 1292

  (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute.)

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1292 and ask 
that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer], for Mrs. Murray, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1292.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.


                Amendment No. 1293 to Amendment No. 1292

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1293 and ask 
that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1293 to amendment No. 1292.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S4734]]

  The amendment is as follows:

                  (Purpose: To add an effective date)

       At the end add the following:

     SEC. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect on the date that is 1 day after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.


                Motion to Commit with Amendment No. 1294

  Mr. SCHUMER. I move to commit H.R. 3935 to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation, with instructions to report back forthwith 
with an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer], moves to commit 
     the bill H.R. 3935 to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation with instructions to report back forthwith an 
     amendment numbered 1294.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

                  (Purpose: To add an effective date)

       At the end add the following:

     SEC. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect on the date that is 3 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1295

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I have an amendment to the instructions 
at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1295 to the instructions of the motion to 
     commit H.R. 3935 to committee.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask to dispense with further reading of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

                (Purpose: To modify the effective date)

       On page 1, line 3, strike ``3 days'' and insert ``4 days''.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Murray 
     substitute amendment No. 1292 to Calendar No. 211, H.R. 3935, 
     a bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to reauthorize 
     and improve the Federal Aviation Administration and other 
     civil aviation programs, and for other purposes.
         Charles E. Schumer, Patty Murray, Tammy Baldwin, Jon 
           Ossoff, Angus S. King, Jr., Richard J. Durbin, Jeanne 
           Shaheen, Margaret Wood Hassan, Amy Klobuchar, Ron 
           Wyden, Jack Reed, Elizabeth Warren, John Fetterman, 
           Edward J. Markey, Tim Kaine, Robert P. Casey, Jr., 
           Richard Blumenthal, Catherine Cortez Masto, Chris Van 
           Hollen, Tammy Duckworth


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 
     211, H.R. 3935, a bill to amend title 49, United States Code, 
     to reauthorize and improve the Federal Aviation 
     Administration and other civil aviation programs, and for 
     other purposes.
         Charles E. Schumer, Patty Murray, Tammy Baldwin, Jon 
           Ossoff, Angus S. King, Jr., Gary C. Peters, Mazie K. 
           Hirono, Joe Manchin III, Richard J. Durbin, Jeanne 
           Shaheen, Elizabeth Warren, Tammy Duckworth, Edward J. 
           Markey, John Fetterman, Tim Kaine, Robert P. Casey, 
           Jr., Jacky Rosen, Jeff Merkley, Richard Blumenthal, 
           Margaret Wood Hassan.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory 
quorum calls for the cloture motions filed today, September 28, be 
waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Peters). The Senator from Hawaii.


                           Government Funding

  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, no one wins in a shutdown--not 
Republicans, not Democrats, and certainly not the people of Hawaii or 
Americans across the country. I have been here for three previous 
shutdowns, in the majority and in the minority, and I have seen the 
same thing over and over again. Shutdowns don't work. The government 
eventually reopens, and neither side has accomplished a single thing.
  No one wins, but Americans have a lot to lose. Millions of Federal 
workers, including military personnel, will be forced to work without 
pay. Children most in need will lose access to food and early education 
programs. Tens of millions of people can't get care at community health 
centers. The food that we eat will go uninspected. Relief for disaster-
stricken communities will grind to a halt. Loans for small businesses 
will not get processed. Seniors will have to wait to get new Medicare 
cards. Travelers will face the risks of more delays.
  We have the ability and the responsibility to prevent all of this 
unnecessary pain and disruption, which is why, Tuesday and today, the 
Senate has a solution. The Senate voted overwhelmingly to advance a 
bipartisan bill that will keep the government open.
  Look, this is not the Civil Rights Act. This is not that big of a 
legislative accomplishment. It is a 47-day stopgap measure to prevent a 
really ridiculous, terrible thing from happening. But we do need to 
pass it.
  Anyone that is serious about governing knows that the only way to 
prevent a shutdown is through bipartisanship. And let me just repeat 
that: The only way to prevent a shutdown is through bipartisanship.
  This bill is a compromise. No one will get what they really wanted, 
but it is the only viable path to keeping the government open as we 
work on passing appropriations bills in the regular order for the full 
year. It is really that simple.
  I just want to point out one thing about shutdowns. We don't have to 
do this to ourselves. Shutdowns are a uniquely American tactic. We are 
not more prone to polarization or partisanship than other governments 
across the world. But you look around the planet, and you won't find 
other legislatures pulling the plug on the government itself and the 
critical services that people need because they couldn't resolve a 
policy dispute. It just doesn't happen because it is that ridiculous, 
it is that insane, it is that counterproductive. Only we do this to 
ourselves. But here, some House Republicans are openly inviting a 
shutdown that we know will exact pain on millions of American families.
  Representative Norman has said:

       We are going to have a shutdown. It's just a matter of how 
     long.

  Representative Rosendale agreed, saying:

       I will not vote for a CR. It doesn't matter what you attach 
     to it.

  What a weird thing to say:
  It doesn't matter what you attach to it.
  ``It doesn't matter what you attach to it''--I am for a shutdown.
  And this from Representative  Bob Good, who sums up their warped 
view:

       We shouldn't fear a government shutdown.

  Well, maybe a Member of Congress is not afraid of a government 
shutdown, but all of the people who work for the Federal Government and 
all of the people who rely on Federal services do fear a government 
shutdown.
  One of their Republican colleagues agrees with me:

       This is not conservative Republicanism. This is stupidity. 
     . . . These people can't define a win.

  That is the problem. The only thing these people know is that they 
want to shut the government down. They haven't even articulated their 
policy demands, and we are 48 hours out.
  So we need to act like grownups and do our job. And I just want to be 
clear:

[[Page S4735]]

We are acting like grownups and doing our job. This is not a criticism 
of the U.S. Senate--so far, so good.
  And listen, even though it is 48 hours, we have a long way to go. We 
have a lot of negotiating to do, and we have a lot of bumps in the 
road. As I like to say, it will get worse before it gets better. So I 
am not suggesting that we are done here, but I am suggesting that we 
are behaving like grownups.
  For the people of Maui and those in so many other communities across 
the country that have had the misfortune of being struck by disasters, 
this bill provides funding that will allow recovery work to continue 
uninterrupted. The ongoing recovery effort on Maui alone will require 
enormous Federal resources, in addition to what is needed in dozens of 
other States that have been slammed by hurricanes, floods, and other 
extreme weather. And while this funding by itself won't ever be enough 
to cover everything in each one of these communities, it is an 
important downpayment.
  Whatever our disagreements or our personal politics, we can all 
agree: No one wins in a shutdown. We have lived through this before and 
know how this ends.
  There is an alternative. We can continue what we started earlier this 
week and just did right now on the floor--pass this bill with 
bipartisan support and keep the government open.
  Let's get it done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I want to join my colleague from Hawaii, 
Senator Schatz, whose reasons for avoiding a shutdown are points that 
we all share, as his State also has suffered a devastating fire now in 
Maui, where we in Vermont have suffered a major flood this summer and 
need FEMA aid.
  There are a couple of things I just want to say. No. 1, I want to 
express my gratitude to my colleagues in the Senate who have come 
together--Leader Schumer and Leader McConnell--in bipartisanship, where 
we have a way of passing a bill to keep the lights on, to keep 
government functioning. No good comes out of a shutdown, to quote 
Senator McConnell.
  Like Senator Schatz, I have been through it before. And as Senator 
Schatz has said, when you ask the folks who literally explicitly favor 
a shutdown, ``What is next?'' they don't have any answer and don't seem 
to think they need to have an answer.
  And we do. The consequences of a shutdown are really devastating in 
large ways and in small ways. A shutdown means our men and women in 
uniform don't get paid. Seriously? We are going to condone asking 
people who are protecting the safety of this Nation to do it without 
pay? That is what shutdown advocates are saying. It is no big deal to 
them.
  And on some small things, I got a letter from a Vermonter whose heart 
has been set on taking his family to a hike in the Grand Canyon. I 
don't know if any of you have ever done that hike. You have to go on 
the website. It is almost like a lottery. You have to get a permit to 
hike. He got a permit to hike and camp for 2 nights for his family. 
That is, I think, October 5 and October 6. If we are shut down, that 
family hike is not going to happen. Well, do you know what? That is 
cruel. It is such a wonderful thing that our families can enjoy the 
Grand Canyon. They won't be able to do it.
  But I want to talk specifically about what happens to Vermonters, and 
this is a situation that Senator Schatz and Senator Hirono share with 
Hawaii. We got hammered in this flood. FEMA has done a tremendous job. 
The FEMA fund needs to be replenished because, as a result of the low 
amount of money in the FEMA fund, they have had to cut back on their 
efforts of recovery that have already been promised.
  Just yesterday, the Washington Post reported that FEMA is delaying 
$2.8 billion in disaster aid to keep from running out of funds. They 
have to have some money available if there is another event that 
requires immediate response to save lives. We understand that. That is 
the right decision for them. But it has real consequences for us in 
Vermont.
  Repayment of these long-term recovery projects that are being halted 
are not from last month. They are from last year. Just think of what 
that means for my State of Vermont, which is in the throes of recovery 
now. FEMA's transition to ``immediate needs'' funding has paused 13 
projects in Vermont, totaling about $7.5 million. As of September 15, 
Vermont has incurred $291 million in flood-related infrastructure 
damages, and we need over $160 million from FEMA and $131 million from 
the Department of Transportation. On top of that, the State has 
estimated that it has incurred $225 million in damages related to FEMA 
public assistance activities, $75 million for FEMA public assistance 
hazard mitigation for 406 mitigation activities, $48 million for the 
Severely Damaged or Destroyed Residential Property Mitigation or Buyout 
Program, $20 million in damages related to FEMA individual assistance 
activities, and $11 million for the Minor Residential Damage Repair 
Program.
  Again, it was so reassuring to me that Republican colleagues 
approached me and said: Peter, we are going to be there to help you 
because we know, but for the grace of God, it could have been in my 
State. Thank you, colleagues.
  But there is a small group in the House that has this notion that it 
is no big deal if we literally shut down government.
  Well, it is a big deal for those folks in Vermont who need FEMA 
relief. It is a big deal for those men and women who serve in the U.S. 
military services when they won't get paid. And it is a big deal to 
that family that wants to have this dreamed-about hike in the Grand 
Canyon and won't be able to do that if, in fact, we are shut down on 
October 5 and October 6.
  So, thank you to my colleagues. I believe we are going to pass the 
bipartisan bill. Bipartisanship is the only way you can avert a 
shutdown and for us to have an opportunity to negotiate other issues 
down the road. And I thank my colleagues for their assistance in our 
effort.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                       Pharmacy Benefit Managers

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have come to discuss with my 
colleagues the plight of our local pharmacists, which is always 
difficult, particularly in small towns; but it is going to be 
particularly difficult come January 1 and through next year. I have 
heard firsthand from rural pharmacists about the looming cashflow 
challenges that they face next year. These challenges are a direct 
result of the powerful pharmacy benefit managers and the managers' 
behavior in response to Federal regulations.
  This is the situation. You see, pharmacies are going to face direct 
and indirect remuneration clawback fees, or what we call DIRs, from the 
PBMs for calendar year 2023, just after January 1, 2024. At the same 
time, pharmacies will also be facing lower post point of sale 
reimbursement from PBMs beginning that same date of January 1 of next 
year. So it is a double whammy against cashflow problems of small rural 
pharmacies.
  For over a decade, these powerful PBMs have gouged rural pharmacies 
by clawing back part of the reimbursements many months after the sale. 
It is almost like you sign a contract the first of the year that you 
are doing business with the PBMs. Then, at the end of the year, you get 
a dun to pay back sometimes thousands of dollars, and I have even heard 
examples of tens of thousands of dollars.
  You see, this situation comes because three very large PBMs control 
nearly 80 percent of the prescription drug market. Some of them are 
vertically integrated, also, with chain pharmacies, insurance 
companies, and other parts of the prescription drug supply chains. So 
PBMs have a lot of power over what the prescription drug patients can 
access through the formulary and how much these drugs are going to cost 
the patient and then the reimbursement for the pharmacy. In other 
words, what is the pharmacy getting paid for doing this service?
  I want to end all direct and indirect reimbursement fees. I attempted 
to do this in legislation, which never passed the Senate, in a 
bipartisan bill by Grassley and Wyden called the Prescription Drug 
Pricing Reduction Act. Even though the legislation didn't pass, we, 
luckily, in 2021, had the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 
determine that that Agency had

[[Page S4736]]

the authority to end most but not all direct and indirect reimbursement 
fees.
  I support CMS's actions they have already taken, but we still need to 
take legislative action to end all DIR fees. CMS's regulations will go 
into effect this January. With CMS's regulations nearing the effective 
date to end most DIR fees, you would think rural pharmacies would be 
about to see some relief. Sadly, this is not the case. These changes 
have turned into a cashflow issue for many rural pharmacies, forcing 
many rural pharmacists to consider closing or going without pay for a 
while so that they can keep their staffs around and keep the lights on.
  Now let's get to a suggested solution for this issue.
  PBMs should work with rural pharmacists to make sure that they don't 
close, because if you are paying everything back to the PBMs or you are 
getting less reimbursement and you are running your accounts from day 
to day, it brings financial problems particularly to these small rural 
pharmacies. Of course, PBMs are so financially strong that they have 
the ability to help these small pharmacists after the first of the 
year. We aren't asking them to help forever; we are asking them just to 
help through this interim period of clawback and less reimbursement. So 
what I am asking here of PBMs is PBMs should work with pharmacies to 
give a little extra time to pay back the 2023 direct and indirect 
reimbursement fees. I am not asking the PBMs to give up a single dollar 
that they are entitled to.

  Because CMS can help us solve this problem, in their final 
regulation, the Agency spoke to concerns about rural pharmacy cashflow 
issues, saying that they were--their words--``particularly attuned'' to 
this issue.
  CMS said that, through law, they have the power to conduct oversight. 
They said that they could enforce, first of all, provider network 
access standards and, second, prompt payment rules.
  In July, I wrote to the CMS Administrator to see what the Agency is 
doing to conduct this oversight and, in turn, help small pharmacies 
through 2024--and, of course, only that 1 year--with their cashflow 
problems.
  As of mid-September, I had not received a response from CMS. I will 
soon tell you about a telephone conversation I had with them. It 
shouldn't take an Agency almost 2 months to respond to me about a 
problem that they said that they are ``particularly attuned'' to. 
Remember, I told you previously those words--``particularly attuned'' 
to--are their words.
  So last week I spoke for a long time on the phone with the CMS 
Administrator. I asked what her Agency is doing to conduct oversight 
and protect our constituents' access to their rural pharmacy and 
particularly our older seniors who can't travel for miles to get their 
drugs. I asked that question because, so far, I have not seen any 
action of oversight by this Agency.
  The Administrator committed in the phone call to monitoring 
compliance to pharmacy access standards and the prompt payment 
requirements, but, at the same time, the Administrator didn't offer any 
specific action that she has taken or even what action she might take.
  The Administrator also committed to looking into what the Agency can 
do to encourage payment plans between rural pharmacies and PBMs or, at 
the very least, bring rural pharmacies and PBMs together to work out a 
joint effort. I am going to be holding the CMS accountable for 
following through on that promise.
  Iowa's seniors and rural pharmacies are counting on the Centers for 
Medicare and Medicaid Services. The Agency can't sit on the sidelines 
and let rural pharmacies go out of business.
  I told this directly to the CMS Administrator, and I will state it 
now to the same CMS Administrator: Please use your authority and bully 
pulpit to protect seniors' access to their rural pharmacies. These very 
powerful PBMs, which receive a lot of public funding from Medicare and 
Medicaid Programs, can also put many rural pharmacies out of business 
if you just stand down. PBMs can't put the blame on others. They must 
and ought to work with rural pharmacies. Don't drive them out of 
business by idly standing by. PBMs have the opportunity to protect 
seniors' access to their local pharmacy.
  It is kind of this situation in rural America because I see it all 
the time in rural Iowa--losing local health delivery professionals. It 
happens that your local pharmacy is oftentimes the only healthcare 
provider that you have. So, obviously, and what I am telling my 
colleagues today is, we need them in our communities,
  I say to my colleagues--because everybody in the U.S. Senate has 
rural communities--I hope you will check into this situation affecting 
small pharmacies, starting January 1, 2024. We have got about 3 months 
to get CMS, rural pharmacies, and PBMs together to smooth out this 
cashflow problem that rural pharmacies are going to have through next 
year.
  I am not going to stop fighting to protect rural pharmacies.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, so ordered.


                            Border Security

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to have a 
conversation with my colleagues and with my constituents to talk about 
an issue that is important to our Nation here in the Nation's Capital 
for the well-being of our country but, certainly, an issue Kansans care 
greatly about, and that is our crisis on our southern border, in 
particular, but border security across and around the country.
  The administration's continued failure to control the border has 
created not just a humanitarian crisis but also a national security 
crisis as well.
  It is no secret that the lack of operational control of the border 
has led to the apprehension of Chinese nationals, individuals with ties 
to ISIS, and others who wish to do this country harm, serious harm.
  Perhaps the biggest failure of the nonchalant approach of this 
administration to the border is the rampant flow of harmful drugs into 
the United States. Deadly drugs, such as methamphetamines, heroin, 
cocaine, and most critically in today's world, fentanyl--fentanyl being 
freely carried into this country and distributed to the cities, towns, 
and neighborhoods. It is a real detriment to our children and the most 
vulnerable. Those drugs are distributed to cities in Kansas and causing 
the death and misery of many Kansans and Americans today.
  A bright spot in this effort to combat fentanyl and other drugs is 
the Drug Enforcement Agency. This morning, I was at their headquarters 
to celebrate with them the DEA's 50th anniversary.
  I am the ranking member of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee; therefore, Senator 
Shaheen and I are responsible, generally, for the appropriations of the 
Drug Enforcement Agency. I have seen firsthand the critical results 
achieved by the DEA and their personnel in this fight.
  DEA agents, investigators, analysts, chemists, attorneys, and support 
staff have provided invaluable services to the public since the 
creation of the DEA 50 years ago in 1973.
  The DEA has faced increasingly well-equipped, well-financed, and 
well-resourced international drug trafficking organizations pushing 
more complex drugs: synthetic opioids which mimic controlled 
substances, including fentanyl.
  I would like to commend the DEA for their work. I would like to 
recognize their 50th anniversary in that process by thanking those in 
the DEA today. We need to be reminded of the number who have been 
wounded and injured in the line of duty, including 79 individuals who 
have received a DEA Purple Heart.
  This administration, this Congress, this Senate--we owe it to the 
dedicated individuals at DEA and to the lives and family members of 
those who lost loved ones to put forth the effort required to create a 
whole-of-government approach to securing the border to cut off the 
pipeline of drugs into this country.
  In 2022 alone, there were around 110,000--let me say that correctly--
there were around 110,000 overdose deaths. That is a little over 300 
deaths

[[Page S4737]]

a day. Around 70,000 of these deaths were attributed to synthetic 
opioids and fentanyl, including 1,200 individual Kansans.
  Mr. President, I find this next fact staggering. So far this year, 
the DEA has confiscated more than 62,400,000 pills, and it estimates 
that 70 percent of those pills contain a lethal dose of fentanyl--70 
percent of 62 million. This puts at risk the lives of 43 million 
Americans.
  We know that Mexican drug cartels control much of the fentanyl 
market, and in the United States, the amount of fentanyl available has 
allowed the market price to drop to as low as 50 cents a pill.
  Further, we also know that many of the precursor chemicals for these 
synthetic drugs originate in China. These chemicals are extremely 
difficult to interdict. They are used in everyday items such as cheese 
and soap. They can be easily hidden in shipping containers.
  This is a full-blown national security crisis, and it is time the 
administration reacts to treat it like what it is--a national security 
crisis, a humanitarian crisis, and loss of lives of American citizens.
  I was in Mexico with several of my colleagues earlier this year, and 
I discussed this issue with President Lopez Obrador. I urged him to 
take this issue up with Chinese officials, and I do believe that we 
have a willing partner, in this instance, in Mexico to combat this 
problem.
  The fiscal year 2024 CJS bill that has just been passed from the 
Senate Committee on Appropriations is our effort with Senator Shaheen, 
and it recognizes the challenges the DEA faces, including $66 million 
of additional funds over the fiscal year 2023 level.
  I know we are talking about fiscal responsibility today. That comes 
at a time in which our appropriation bill is reduced from last year by 
$1.3 billion. So I would indicate to my Kansans that I share their 
concern about the levels of spending and the balancing of our books.
  In the bill that I am most responsible for in the appropriations 
process, we have reduced spending this year from last year $1.3 
billion. But within the amount of money that we can spend, we 
prioritized the fight against drugs. The Fiscal Responsibility Act has 
made our work more difficult but moves us more closely toward balancing 
the budget, and it shows that we can work together in this case in 
support of combating the fentanyl--and other drugs--crisis in our 
country in a bipartisan manner.
  While law enforcement efforts to combat fentanyl trafficking are 
bipartisan, we have not yet had bipartisan support to seriously close 
the border to drug traffickers. There are a lot of challenges we face. 
It also is important to recognize that we need less demand in the 
United States, and Americans are buying the drugs that come here. We 
need to make certain that we do the things that are necessary to make 
certain Americans certainly know the consequences of drug use and the 
consequences to them, their families, their loved ones, and even to our 
Nation.
  While law enforcement efforts to combat fentanyl trafficking are 
bipartisan, we have a lot more work to do when it comes to the U.S. 
border with Mexico and our other borders. For all the work the DEA does 
to disrupt drug trafficking and distribution networks, the border is by 
far the single most important line of defense.
  We are debating whether or not to proceed on a continuing resolution 
to continue funding the Federal Government. I oppose a shutdown of 
government, in part because a shutdown would make the crisis that we 
face at our border even worse. Our DEA and Border Patrol agents are 
already starved for resources, and many cannot afford to miss a 
paycheck while continuing to put their lives on the line to secure the 
border.
  This body must take seriously the crisis we face, and while funding 
the government is important in this battle, we also have a lot more 
that we can do. We need to make certain that the appropriations bills 
that I just talked about, the 12 appropriations bills that have been 
reported by the Senate committee, work their way across this Senate 
floor, recognizing that the continuing resolution is only a pause. 
While government continues to function, we continue to work.
  I look forward to every opportunity to see that we do more at the 
border, that we put Americans on notice about the importance of 
avoiding drug abuse and drug use in this country, and that our national 
security is at risk. I look forward to that conversation, but more 
importantly, I look forward to the results.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). The Senator from Louisiana.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2968

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am back again to try to keep the 
National Flood Insurance Program from expiring.
  I will be the first to concede that America needs a national flood 
insurance program that looks like we designed it on purpose. What we 
have now does not look like that. To call it imperfect is an 
understatement. But the only thing worse than having what we have right 
now is to not have a national flood insurance program at all.
  The fact of the matter is, for all practical purposes, people who are 
at risk for flooding cannot buy flood insurance from the private 
markets, which means they can't buy a home, which means their mortgages 
would be foreclosed upon. That is why we have a National Flood 
Insurance Program.
  Should we improve it? Yes. I have been trying for 7 years. We need to 
keep trying. But we are not going to get it done over the next couple 
of days.
  I believe government is going to shut down tomorrow--or at least 
Saturday, rather. I hope not, but I believe it is. And if it does, the 
National Flood Insurance Program will be shut down.
  I don't want to scare people half to death. It doesn't mean that FEMA 
will stop--which runs the NFIP--will stop paying claims, but it will 
stop commerce, if nothing else, because FEMA can't issue new policies. 
And, again, I realize it is not perfect. But we are in hurricane 
season.
  Let me say that again. We are in hurricane season.
  Is this important to my State? You bet. But it is not just important 
to my State; it is important to every single coastal State. And that is 
why I would like to see us extend this program for a very, very short 
period of time.
  My bill is a clean extension. It doesn't make any changes to the 
program. I wish I had the authority to make changes, but I don't. This 
bill will just extend what we have now, imperfect as it may be--and 
Lord knows it is imperfect--through December 31, 2023. That will give 
us some additional time to design a program that looks like somebody 
designed it on purpose.
  Mr. President, for that reason, I ask unanimous consent--did I 
mention, Mr. President, that my State is in the middle of hurricane 
season?
  Let me say that again--and so is every coastal State. And we are 
going to shut down the National Flood Insurance Program in the middle 
of hurricane season, the U.S. Senate? What planet did we just parachute 
in from?
  For that reason, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill, S. 2968, 
which is at the desk; I further ask that the bill be considered read a 
third time and passed--and passed--and that the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. We can today 
renew the National Flood Program and reform it. All it takes is for the 
Senators assembled here not to object to the reforms.
  I think that flood insurance provided by the taxpayer, subsidized by 
the taxpayer, shouldn't be for rich people or for their vacation home 
or their beach homes. Government has no business insuring rich people 
and their second homes. So I have some proposals to reform this system. 
We are being asked, though, to extend the flood program without any 
reforms, without any reforms to protect the taxpayers. Like many 
Federal programs, the flood insurance is well-intentioned, but it very 
well may be the best real-life example of a moral hazard.
  The program covers over 5 million policyholders and provides over $1 
trillion in coverage. We are told that the program is funded through 
insurance

[[Page S4738]]

premiums. But charging well below the market price of insurance and 
capping how much these rates can rise inevitably leads to shortfalls.
  A 2014 report by the Government Accountability Office found that the 
flood program collected as much as $17 billion fewer in premiums than 
what the market would have dictated. So when the program inevitably 
found itself in need of money, in theory, it borrowed that money from 
the taxpayers, not that the taxpayers had any choice in the matter. 
They took it. As they often are, they were on the hook regardless of 
whether they wanted to be or not.
  Just a few years ago, the flood program owed over $30 billion to the 
taxpayers. Congress later canceled $16 billion in debt, but the flood 
program has not made any further repayment to the taxpayers and now 
stands at over $20 billion in debt.
  In short, it is a subsidy. It is a gift. It is the taxpayers giving 
people who have homes along the coast subsidized rates, and we all have 
to pay for it.
  You might say: Well, maybe some poor people have no place to go; the 
government has a role in that, but a lot of these homes are people's 
second homes.
  I say we should limit the insurance to houses under a certain amount, 
modest homes. Some guy has a $5 million mansion on the coast of Florida 
should not get his insurance through the government. We shouldn't all 
have to pay for the insurance for some somebody who has a $5 million 
home.
  The taxpayers are expected to cough up money whenever the program 
needs it, but the program doesn't seem to be in a hurry to pay the 
taxpayer back. But perhaps the greatest insult to the taxpayer is the 
lack of true limits on the delinquent program. There are no limits on 
how many claims that can be filed and how much money can be received by 
a policyholder. Rather than encourage people to leave flood-prone 
areas, it encourages people to stay and rebuild.
  And, in thousands of instances, the program encourages people to 
rebuild and rebuild and rebuild. According to the PEW Charitable 
Trusts, over 150,000 properties have been rebuilt over and over again. 
In fact, 25 to 30 percent of flood program claims are made by 
policyholders whose properties flood time and again.

  There is no learning curve here. The government provides you 
something for a subsidy and you got your beach home and it keeps 
getting flooded and you just keep building if the government will pay 
for it. Have Uncle Sam pay for it. Have your neighbors pay for it.
  Over 2,000 properties have flooded more than 10 times. They don't 
move; they just keep rebuilding in an area that is a flood zone.
  One home in Batchelor, LA, flooded 40 times and received a total of 
$428,000 in flood payments. It would have been cheaper to buy him a new 
home in a neighborhood that doesn't flood.
  Can you imagine having to withstand the ordeal of your home flooding 
10, 20, 40 times? Well, the taxpayer doesn't have to imagine paying for 
it because they are stuck with the bill.
  Adding insult to injury, the Congressional Budget Office found that 
the flood program tends to benefit the wealthy and that 23 percent of 
subsidized coastal properties were not even the policy owner's first 
house. We are talking about vacation houses that average, ordinary 
people who are suffering to go to the grocery store are having to pay 
for the insurance for some guy's vacation home.
  Yes, it is true. The government forces the taxpayer to rebuild the 
summer homes of the rich. In fact, sometimes it seems that the flood 
program caters directly to the wealthy. Nearly 80 percent of these 
flood policies are located in counties that rank with the top 20 
percent of income.
  Enough is enough. It is an insult to rob from the taxpayer to give to 
the wealthy. That is why I offer an amendment that would require the 
flood program to cover only primary residences, no vacation houses, and 
establish a cap so that only modestly priced houses would be in it.
  I agree that there is a disruption. If it ends immediately, there 
would be a disruption. We can have an interim.
  My offer today, if accepted, if not objected to, would be: Today we 
fix this. We can stand right here today and fix this if there is no 
objection. We would continue the program only for primary residences, 
only under a certain amount, and it would continue. We would finally 
reform it. A long-awaited reform that people wanted for years could 
happen today if there is no objection.
  So, therefore, I ask the Senator to modify his request so that the 
Paul amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; the bill, as 
amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and that the 
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Louisiana so modify his 
request?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President. Maybe the 
homes that my good friend Senator Paul is describing are homes in 
Kentucky, but they are not homes in Louisiana. The homes in Louisiana 
that need flood insurance are not mansions. These are homes of working 
people. These are modest homes being paid for by people who get up 
every day, go to work, obey the law, pay their taxes, and try to do the 
right thing by their kids.
  I don't know about the millionaires that Senator Paul is talking 
about. Again, maybe they are in Kentucky. But they are not in 
Louisiana. My coast is a working coast.
  Point 2: What Senator Paul proposes is to limit flood insurance to 
$250,000.
  The median sales price of a home in America today is $430,300. Now, 
there are a lot of reasons for that. One of the reasons for that is 
President Biden's inflation. But those are the facts. In Louisville, 
KY, the median sales price is $271,000. In Dallas, TX, it is $389,000. 
In Miami, it is $605,000.
  Why do you want to fool the American people? Why do you want to 
``reform'' a flood insurance program that is going to deny flood 
insurance?
  Do some people own second homes? Yes. I thought Republicans weren't 
supposed to penalize success in America. I thought our position was 
that if you worked hard and accumulated wealth, first, you should get 
to keep most of it. Why? Because you earned it. And second, we should 
applaud success in America. If you earn enough to buy a second home, we 
shouldn't discourage that. The third reason I cannot agree to my friend 
Senator Paul's suggestion is because he knows as well as I do that many 
of us have worked together to try to reform the Flood Insurance 
Program. We haven't reached consensus yet. We are going to keep 
working. But if I agree to Senator Paul's suggestion today, both he and 
I will be selling out our colleagues who would not agree to these 
changes, and they are not here right now.
  The easy thing for me to do is to accept the Senator's proposal, but 
I don't play that way. I am not going to do it without giving every 
Member of this Senate who would like input into Senator Paul's 
suggestions the chance to object as well. I don't play that way.
  For that reason, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Is there objection to the original request?
  Mr. PAUL. Reserving the right to object, the statistics really do 
tell the story. Twenty-three percent of all homes that are insured 
under this program, whether they are in Louisiana or any other coastal 
State, are second homes or vacation homes.
  I would be perfectly willing to negotiate what the actual price of 
the home is that can be in this situation, and I would offer to modify 
the amendment from $250,000 to $350,000 to allow more homes to be in. 
But saying the median is $433,000--well, the limit right now is 
infinite. There is no limit. You can have a $5 million vacation home, 
and the government is going to subsidize it.
  If we don't subsidize these houses, does that mean we are 
discouraging people who have wealth or have second homes? No. This has 
nothing to do with that. It is saying the taxpayer shouldn't subsidize 
rich people.
  The thing is, the reform will be objected to today, and there will 
not be any reform to this program, and these programs go on year after 
year because no one will bring to light what is actually happening 
here.
  If you were to ask the American people today ``Do you think we should 
be subsidizing flood insurance for people's beach house,'' I think they 
would say ``No. Buy your own damn insurance if

[[Page S4739]]

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

                          ____________________