outgoing or incoming top three. and certainly it's the same in virginia. our two countries have a long history of friendship and our cultural ties run deep. nafta integrated supply chains in the u.s., canada, and mexico in a degree i view as generally positive. we share traditions of democracy, and they require consistent work to ensure strong and independent institutions. looking more closely at the usmca in particular, my colleague talked about worries that rules are being renegotiated around the resolution of disputes that would make it harder for vulcan and companies like vulcan to seek assistance. we've been in this free trade agreement for three decades now. in exchange for preferential access to american markets, which has resulted in the intertwined supply chain that i described, mexico committed to uphold certain standards that

american workers, consumers, companies and investors spevenlth -- spevenlth the standards were strengthened in 2019. they include robust protection for workers for the environment and for companies operating abroad, and the standards not only protect americans, but promote economic growth in mexico, helping address the root causes of michelleration and other chal -- migration and other challenges. the protections give certainty to other companies, and investors looking to participate in helping grow and expand the mexican economy. so particularly as companies are looking to near shore, in the aftermath of covid, looking to bring supply chains back to the united states and nations closer to the united states with whom we have free trade agreements, mexico has been seen as a very attractive destination. but actions like those being taken against vulcan now

undermine that momentum. so in response to these actions, senators hagerty, britt, tuberville, barrasso, budd and i introduced the defending american property abroad act earlier this year. the bill would make clear that the u.s. does not condone discriminatory treatment against american companies, particularly with free-trade agreement partners. we understand, even if we don't accept the notion, that some american companies are put at great disadvantage in nations where there are not trade agreements. but where there are trade but where there are trade >> but where there are trade agreements, particularly an agreement like usmca which is going to be the scheduled for a are renegotiation andre consideration many 2026, we should not condone this treatmentur of -- mistreatment f american companies by our trade agreement partners. the bill that we have introduced would reiterate it's a bipartisan work in the congress to uphold the standards in the upcoming 6-year review of the

trade agreement. it would work to deter mexico and any country in our hemisphere from illegally seizing additional u.s. assets. we must make it clear that this behavior will not be tolerated. i note for my colleague, with some sense of dismay, that i think i have some colleagues on my side of the aisle that don't like the notion thatn a disappointed company can seek relief against a regulation put in place by another country. they're concerned about whether that w is a violation of sovereignty in some sense. yes,es it is the case that the usmca leaves wide latitude the for the participating nations to adopt their own regulatory framework. but there should be no disagreement in this body that an effort to completely seize the property of an american company can never be justified as an appropriate regulatory action.s and thath is what is happening.

and i would hope colleagues on both sides of the aisle thinking about companies in their own states would realize if this is allowed to happen with the u.s. turning a blind eye or shrugging their shoulders to it, we'll see a lot more of m it, and we needo stop this now. so i look forward to working to continue to pass our bill in congress. we must if ensure that the future of u.s.-mexico relationship continues to be grounded in the rule of law. the chairman of the western hemisphere subcommittee of the foreign relations committee, i care about relationship are. i want it to get stronger and stronger. i celebrated successes, i celebrate mexico's successes, but i don't hesitate to stand and challenge actions either by the mexican government or the inaction of the united states government that the pose risks to america's companies. and with that, madam president, i yield the floor.

>> madam president? >> senator from alabama. >> madam president, as has been discussed by my distinguished colleagues, in the may of 2022 mexican military forcibly shut down -- company operations. almost a year later, military police came in, military of our supposed ally. they breached and seized broken point facility at gunpoint. that's right. instead of using its armed forces to con discandidate a fentanyl killing hundreds of american citizens every single day, the mexican military -- under the directive of their former president -- compensated a port rightfully owned by an american company, an alabama company. instead of going after the cartels, our neighbor went after

law-abiding americans, radical leftist andres manuel lopez obrador seized operations and and property. make no mistake, that action was illegal under both mexican and international law. and it's unacceptable that mexico's new president seems to be carrying the water for him. she said absolutely nothing except for that she's going to continue her -- he is going to continue lopez obrador's unlawful seizure of an american company, and she stands with him. o time and time again over the past four years bad actors across the globe have poked and prodded at the united states because they saw weakness in the white house. they saw they could do it and get away with it. and when they did, without even the slightest bit of response,

let alone without consequences, they just kept doing it. unfortunately, we learned from the "wall street journal"'s recently published editorial citing sources stating that this administration, the biden administration, has undergone last minute back room negotiations on the u.s.-mexico-canada trade the agreement, the changes journal reporterred -- reported would rob american companies like vulcan of the protections they've relied on when investing in partner countries. that would have prevented those partner countries from seizing, forng example, operation centers or port if facilities. the biden administration and its u.s. trade representatives are actively undermining american interests. they're leaving american companies out in the cold would want consulting congress, preventing us from exercising our constitutional duty to provide oversight on trade. the biden administration's actions should be a front-page

story in every newspaper across this nation. the idea that a sitting presidentst and/or his administration would be working against the interests of the country or the people that the he was elected to serve is absolutely unacceptable. while we wait for january 20th, i am proud in the interim to support, proudly, senator bill hagerty's piece of legislation. it'sle called defending american property abroadbr act. i join this quickly alongside senators barrasso, cain, tuberville and wicker. it would prohint the mexican government from profiting from its unlawful seizures of vulcan property and pot -- port facility. entry into a u.s. port. and should the mexican government attempt to violate the law, it would be met with

crushing consequences. the u.s. can no longer stand by as its companies are terrorized by foreign governments. we will not sit back and watch as our own government allows our interests around the world and our own hemisphere to come under attack. and we will not be afraid of protecting our own citizens and their interests. this past november the american people did not choose decline. we choose renewal. we must begin to reassert ourselves and make sure no country, not mexico, not anyone else, can get away with the seizures like the one that the mexican government carried out against vulcan. american interests, american families, american values, american securities must come first. i yield the floor. mr. tuberville: madam president. the presiding officer: the

senator from alabama. mr. tuberville: madam president, i'd like to thank senator hagerty for coordinating this event, and senator kaine and senator britt for standing up and supporting vulcan materials. you know, supporting american businesses abroad should be uni unifying, unifying position across political parties, and i thank our democrat colleagues who have joined me in this effort for the past several months. unfortunately, we've seen just how little this administration cares about protecting the american investment overseas. we could have corrected this problem, specifically i'm talking about the unlawful actions taken by the government of mexico against vulcan materials company, which is headquartered in birmingham, alabama. vulcan is the nation's largest producer of construction inputs, including crushed stone, sand, and gravel. vulcan is also a major producer of materials like asphalt and

r ready-mixed concrete. the materials produced by vulcan are used in nearly all forms of construction. this includes infrastructure repairs to a bridge, a road, or when a new office building is built, or a church that needs to be built. while headquartered in alabama, vulcan has 720 facilities in more than 12,000 -- and more than 12,000 employ yips in the united states of america -- employees in the united states of america. its reach is international. vulcan has operated in mexico since the 80's. this supplies materials to alabama, florida, louisiana, mississippi, south carolina, and texas. vulcan has quarried limestone legally in mexico on land that it owns and has paid for for over 30 years. it has full ownership of the property in mexico and owns the limestone reserves on the property, all paid for by

vulcan. vulcan also operates a deepwater port in mexico, paid for by vulcan. vulcan operates that port because vulcan built the port. over the course of 30 years, vulcan materials has paid billions in taxes to the mexican government. it has employed thousands of people over the years, providing them with health care and pensions, which is why i was shocked when two years ago the mexican government swooped in and announced it would pursue legal action against vulcan, overnight. after all that, vulcan has done for the country of mexico, the mexican government swooped in to stop all their operations in just a few days. the mexican government's baseless claim was that the company is operating illegally in mexico after 30 years. that statement is categorically

false. unfortunately, the government of mexico followed through with its threat and legal action. mexican government officials presented local vulcan employees with orders to immediately cease operations on vulcan's own land in mexico. i believe this shutdown ordered by the mexican government represents a baseless attack on u.s. companies and demonstrates a disregard for rule of law. it's why i joined senator hagerty in introducing the defending american property abroad act to impose retaliatory politicses that -- probeitions that deter and punish any western hemisphere nation that unlawfully seizes american assets. clearly, mexico's new president, claudia sheinbaum, isn't get the message that this is unacceptable. under her leadership, the mexican government continues to pursue legal action against

vulcan. vulcan has and continues to be subject to public harassment, intimidation, and tactics, and all kind of harassment from the mexican government. the mexican navy sent troops to the entrance of the vulcan facility for several days. the mexican navy flew black hawk helicopters and drones over vulcan's property. the mexican navy sent patrol boats to vulcan's harbor. and the mexican government withheld the issuance of a routine customs permit for several months. these actions by the mexican government are contrary to the most basic principles of international law and the free trade agreements that bind our two countries together. most notably it goes against the usmca, united states-mexico-canada agreement that was signed into law by president trump. however, the mexican government's attack on vulcan is bigger than just one company. first of all, it undermines the

rule of law in mexico. it ignores international law and free trade agreements. it weakens our bilateral relationship. and it will discourage further u.s. investment in mexico. over the last several years we have all heard about the actions the mexican government has attempted to take against u.s. energy companies in mexico. this action against vulcan is just an example of how far mexico is willing to go. this will have a direct impact on the supply chain from major infrastructure projects in the united states and the entire world. we cannot allow this to stand. and i know president trump is not going do allow this -- to allow this to stand. he will not tolerate countries abusing the good work of american countries. and as chief architect of the

usmca, president trump won't allow any country in the western hemisphere to bully american businesses. it's a fight any country should think twice about and about starting. in the meantime, it i urge -- i urge the biden administration to take appropriate action at the office of the united states trade representative and through dip diplomatic channels to ensure vulcan a great, great, great american country -- company can maintain critical operations in mexico. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: i ask that the quorum call for the serena raquel murillo be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection?

without objection. all postcloture time has expired. the question is on the cheeks nomination. mr. tester: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines.

ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine.

mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. kim. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray.

mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. risch. >> welcome, i'm suzanne spaulding here at the center for strategic and international studies where i lead the democratic institution's project, and we are so honored today the to have such a dedicated public servant, our former secretary of defense, leon panetta, here for an important conversation about a recent survey that the panetta the institute conducted about the state of our democracy and what can be done to engage young

people to be the engaged citizens that we need to preserve our democracy going forward. secretary panetta really hardly needs anit introduction, but i'm going to quickly recap his amazing career. as you all know, he served under several administrations. he served as secretary of defense but also before that director of the central intelligence agency, he was white house chief of staff, he was director of the office of management and budget and, of course, he was a member of the u.s. house of representatives from california for 16 years. he was reelected 8 times. his distinguished career in public service also included serving as an officer in the army military intelligence corps where he received the army commendation med ifal. secretary panetta and his wife sylvia cofounded the panetta institute for public policy at the university of california --

california state university in 1997 when -- and when he retired the as secretary of defense in 2013, he went back and serves now as chairman of that institute. the institute is dedicated to motivating and preparing people for lives of public service. andy, helping them to become moe knowledgeably engaged in the democratic process. for those of you who are watchingun us through the csis events page, i want to note that you can ask questions. push the question button and submit your questions in writing, and we'll get to those at the end of our conversation. mr. secretary, it's an honor to have this opportunity to talk with you about the work of the institute and its most recent survey and the state of our democracy. so let's start with the decision this you and your wife sylvia made to establish this institute on public policy. you must had lots of options and

thought about lots of different things you could do with your energy and your expertise. what was it that made you decide this is really where you wanted to focus your energy? >> well, thank you, suzanne, for for hosting program, and my thanks to csis and john hamre for making this possible. we, civil ya and i, my wife -- sylvia and i, my wife and i, came back after serving as chief of staff to bill clinton and immediately were involved in teaching some classes at a university that i helped found because it replaced the fort order military reservation -- fort ord at monterey bay. and i began teaching there, and i taught at my alma mater at santa clara. and both my wife and i were very

concerned that we did not see that the interest in young people to get involved in public service, something that was true for my generation. and as a result of that, we thought it was really important to the try to establish an institute that would try to inspire young people to get involved in public service and get involved in our democracy. and we developed a curriculum to try to meet that. we do a leadership course for student body officers. we do a congressional internship program in washington. we coa lecture series. i even do a program, a fellows program, where i try to teach the art of governing, something that's a lost art these days. and really have these law students look at issues, give me the republican viewpoint, give me the democratic viewpoint and then tell me what a compromise

would look like. it's called governing in democracy. we've got some great courses, and we are seeing the results of that as young people who are in our programs are now serving in congress as aides, some have run for congress, some are now serving in california at the state legislature. so we're happy that we've been able to plant some seeds of future leadership for our democracy which we believe is important to the having a future of our democracy. >> that's just outstanding and so inspiring and i wish we could clone this all across the country and have this happening many every community across the nation. because while you are clearly producing some really positive results here, we are not seeing this across country. and your most recent survey,

youth civic engagement, has some very troubling information in it. and i know you started doing this survey in 2000, and this is your 23rd year. of doing this survey. of but, you know, among the sad things that i saw as i read over the results of your survey, i thought, was that 70% of young people say that it's harder to achieve the american dream than it was for their parents' generation. in 2004 only 6% of those surveyed thought they would end up being worse off financially than their parents. in the mideast recent survey, that was at 4 2% up from 6%. also among the most troubling findings and perhaps related, the survey revealed that 71% of young people believe that the country is on the wrong track. what are your thoughts on these

findings, secretary, and what other findings in the survey really stood out to you? >> well, we've been doing this national survey for, as you pointed out, over 20 years. and we do it with hart and associates. and our purpose is the try to really find out where young people's attitudes are not only towards democracy, but towards a number of issues as well. and this latest poll is very discouraging because it found that the student level of engagement and desire to participate in our democracy is at historic lows, historic lows. and the one that bothered me the most is the one that young people really did not think that they would be able to enjoy a better life than their parents, which is the american dream.

and that particularly hurt me because, frankly are, as the son of italian immigrants, i remember asking my dad why they came all that denies to -- distance to come to this country. and i never forgot his answer. my mother and he believed that they could give their children a better life in this country. that's the american dream. that's what we want for our children. and if they feel like they're not going to be able to enjoy that american dream, that's a significant finding that tells us that the young people now for some reason are losing faith not in -- not only in if our democracy, but with losing faith in their ability to succeed in life. and that's particularly concerning. somehow we have got to be able to inspire if them to understand that that dream is real, that they can achieve it and that we

can have a better democracy. >> yeah. i do worry that the -- there are lots of reasons, obviously, that there is a stronger sense of financial insecurity, and it's not just among young people. but i do worry thats there is -- that there is a tendency to equate what they consider sort of the flaws of maybe rampant capitalism with democracy. i talk to a number of young people who talk about they prefer a socialist system, a socialism, as opposed to democracy. i have to point outta to them that socialism is really an economic model, and there are democracies that have more socialistic economic models. but i do think there is a sense that democracy is failing to meet the needs of its people. in so many ways. and so those two issues are not

surprisingly connected. your survey found that many young people just feel disconnected from democracy and uncertain about their role in democracy. only 54% say democracy in america is working very or somewhat well, and three-quarters of those surveyed believe that democracy will not improve or will be worse in ten years. how do we empower young people? i can't help but think that some of that is connected to their uncertainty about the roles of the three branches of government and how democracy is supposed to work. how do we empower young people to have a greater role and an understanding of their role and sense of their ability to influence things going forward?

>> well, that's, that's the question that, you know, the pa tet that -- panetta institute is looking at very closely. because it really does relate to our future as a democracy. i mean, our democracy depends on future generations of leaders that embrace our democracy and are able to not only do hair duty to the country, but -- their duty to the country, but also understand that they can make a difference. they can make a difference. and that is really the fundamental principle of our democracy, is that we can make a difference in people's lives. look, there's no silver bullet here. i wish there were. but there's a combination of things that i think we need to pay attention to. one is that i have to tell you, and i teach a lot of students who come through the panetta institute, i do not believe they

are as grounded as they should be in our democracy. and i i think part of that is the education process. when i was in high school, i took -- i was required to take for college prep if courses in problems in democracy, mt. constitution -- in the constitution, in history, in understanding how our democracy is supposed to function. and as a matter of fact, in order to graduate if from high school, this was a public school in those days, you had to pass the constitution test. that's no longer required. and so what i'm finding is that young people who come to the panetta institute, we have a congressional internship program where we're going to send them back to washington to work with members of congress. i've got to spend time teaching them about our democracy. how laws are made. and, look, i understand the problem. there are members of congress

who don't know quite how laws are made these days. so i can understand young people feeling that way, but i think part of this is, is the role of education. part of it is the role model in democracy. look, when i was young, i looked to washington, and there was a young president who said ask not what your country country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. there werein role models that i saw in washington. there aren't that many role models now that inspire young people to get involved in public service. and then add to that the dysfunction in washington. if you're looking at a washington that is not working together in order to govern the country but, rather, fighting with each other in partisan divisions and divisiveness, that

really does not look very good in terms of our democracy and, matter of fact, it's creating frustration not just among young people, but among the american people. and so you given to combine bind all of that together, and you can begin to to understand why young people for whatever reason reason are not attracted to public service, not attracted to to being part of our democracy. and somehow it's going to take a come by nation of efforts here to try to get them to understand that they have a duty to country. look, i'm a believer in duty to country. we taught our three sons that duty to country was important. that's what my parents taught me. somehow we've got to get back to that. and, you know, i've often said this, and i know it's going to

be tough to do. but i really do think that this country needs a national service system in which young people in some way have to serve this country in some capacity whether it's in education, whether it's in conservation, whether it's in helping the agent or some other areas or in the military service. to be able to serve this country for who two years and understand that the importance of duty to our democracy, somehow we've got to be the able to get young people to understand that they do have a duty to serve our nation if. >> yeah. that notion of civic responsibility is just so crucial. when i was undersecretary ott to homeland -- at homeland security

leading the men and women responsible for cybersecurity and critical frurks i would often go around the country and speak to, you know, communities, and i would always say, you know, cybersecurity is a shared responsibility. and i so often got blank looks back. and i -- it dawned on me part of what i was seeing there was we have not a really taught this sense of civic responsibility. but your point is so well taken, that we need, we need to be teaching about democracy, and we need our institution. to be ready, to be responsive, to be accountable. let's start with the civics piece. you know, your sense that you're getting students who need a prime on basic -- primer on basic civics is spot on. the most recent national assessment of educational progress found that only 22% of

eighth graders were proficient in civics. and if that has been the case for many, many years. we turn out year after year after year, and very few of them get that then in high school either. and is so they're coming out and either going to college or going into their communities without that grounding. and as i say, that's been happening for decades. part of what we see as a result of that is an adult population that also needs to find ways to become -- to increase their civic knowledge, their civic skills and their civic engagement. and at csis, we have been promoting something called civics at work the get businesses to step up to the role they can play and try to strengthen that among our adult population. but higher education, stepping up to this is also critically important. we launched a series called civics as a national security 'em pertive, and you have had

much of your career in the national security realm and are a real expert in that. do you agree that, i mean, with so much talk of s.t.e.m. being a national security imperative and priority, that civics ought to be on a par with s.t.e.m. in terms of how we view the urgency and the importance of investing in reinvigorated civics education. >> yeah, absolutely. you know, it's -- i know we've been focusing on s.t.e.m. for a long time, but the reality is that none of that works unless young people understand the role of our democracy and their role in our democracy. and the reality that civics education provides that

fundamental foundation in young people so that they understand that in order to be able to work in our democracy, heavy got to be able to respect and understand the views of others. look, our democracy does not function unless it's built on trust. i've often said that in my over 50 years of public life i've seen washington at its best, and i've seen washington at its worst. i mean, the good news is i've seen washington work. i was there at a time when republicans and democrats worked together. they worked together. they had their political differences, but when it came to big issues, they worked together. when i got elected to congress, tip o'neill was the speaker of the house to, a democrats' democrat from boston. but he had a great relationship with bob michael, who was the

minority leader from illinois. did they have their differences? yes. but they really stressed that when it came to big issues, both parties have a responsibility to work together. and to the understand one another. and to be be able to trust one another. and speak to one another. and the ability to do that, which we had in those days, the ability to sit in a room and negotiate on some of the most critical issues was important in order to govern. you know, i can remember during the reagan administration republicans and democrats worked on social security reform. imagine, the third rail of politics. but both sides were working together to do social security reform, and it papassed with a bipart is san vote. we did immigration reform in those days, something congress can't even begin the deal with

for the last to the year -- 20 years. but we did, and we negotiated and respected each other's views. on a bipartisan vote, we did budgets working together. finish so the ability to relate to one another, to listen, to respect their views even if you disagree with them but give them the opportunity to express their views so is that you could ultimately find compromise, you could ultimately find consensus, that's what our democracy is built on. goes back to our forefathers. our democracy does not work if you just kind of assume that one party or one president could somehow dictate what happens. as a matter of fact, our forefathers said they don't want power centralized in any one branch of government. they don't want a king, they don't want a king-parliament. they don't want a chamber court. so they built this system of

three separate but equal branches of government to be able to not only limit power, but give our democracy a chance for people to fully participate in governing our country. so civics education, the ability to understand the importance of working with others, the a ability to understand that you can make a difference in our democracy if you participate, all of those things have to be restored so that young people can embrace the role they have to play in our democracy and not walk away from them. >> yeah. so let's, let's pick up on your conversation about how congress used to operate in a more bipartisan fashion. there's always been differences in the perspectives, viewpoints and ideologies between the two

parties. that's part of the strength of our system. but the ability to find ways to move forward. my sense is that there are members on both sides of the aisle who would value that, and i think we saw that in the compromise that was worked out on -- that did not ultimately get enacted. so maybe your thoughts on how did we wind up where we are today? that's a big question. but perhaps more importantly, what -- how can we make sure, how can we move forward in a way that congress steps up to its important role as a check and balance, as an independent branch of government and its role in being a constructive body that conducts bipart partisan oversight and, where appropriate, legislation. and, certainly, appropriation of

funds in keeping the government going. how do we get back there? >> suzanne, i tell the students at the a pa net that student that in our democracy we govern either by leadership or by crisis. if leadership is there and willing to make the tough decisions associated with leadership, and as we all know if you're going to be a leader, you're going of to take risks, you're going to have to take chances. you may offend people that support you. but if you're doing what's right for the country, that's leadership. if we have that kind of leadership, we can avoid crisis, certainly contain the it. but if that leadership isn't there, we'll govern by crisis. and for the last 20 or more years in washington we've largely governed by crisis. nothing exemplifies that better than budget process. i mean, i -- when i was in

congress, i was chair of the budget committee p. we passed budget resolutions. it was the law. they haven't passed a budget resolution in over 20 years. we passed appropriations bills. oftentimes by october 1, which is what you're supposed to do. they haven't done that for over 20 years as well. so what they wind up doing because they aren't obviously exercising fiscal discipline, they wind up going with a continuing resolution to keep the government funded. and even passing that the is often times difficult to do because they know it's a crisis because they know if they don't pass a c.r., they're going to shut the government down. so they have to operate with that axe over hair head. their head. and that really does undermine if the process that should take

place. look, i have a son who's in congress who took, actually is in my seat in the congress, jimmy. and he served in the military during afghanistan. and he saw many in my day -- in my day the work we did working together with republican going out to dinner, going on trips together developing good relationships. and he thought it was important for congress to get back to that. there is a group called the problem solvers' congress in the house made up of, i believe, 20, almost 30 members from the republican side and 30 from the democratic side. and they are trying to work together. they're trying to develop compromise together, and they have been successful at doing

some of that. so there is, i think, among a number of members the desire not to simply confront one another, not simply to block one another, but to actually work together to try to deal with the problems that face this country. it's a national security issue. and the reason it's a national security issue is because if our democracy isn't working to solve issues like immigration, to solve issues like the budget and the debt, to solve issues like health care and other needs in this society, it weakens our country. it weakens our country. and so in order to be able to show that our democracy is strong, both republicans and democrats have to be willing to work together.

to be able to sit down to find compromise, to find consensus and to place nation above party. that is critical. it can't just be about the party. it can't just be about politics. it has to be about how do we solve the issues that are confronting the american people and until we get back to that, you know, you can put a lot of money into defense, you can put a lot of money in other areas for national security, but the most fundamental area, the ability to govern our democracy, is going to fail. you know, i've often said we can go one of two ways in this country. we can go towards an american renaissance, we've got a strong exhibitioner our fundamentals are good, we could teach our kids the skills of the future, republicans and democrats could work together, we could have world leadership in a dangerous world with. we could have that kind of

america. but if we allow our fears and our hates and our divisions and our partisanship to eat us alive, then we'll be an america in decline, and we'll go the way of past empires. because past empires died because they lost the ability to lead. so that's what we've got to inspire, is bold leadership that is willing to to the find consensus and willing to work together to do what our democracy needs most of all, which is to govern. to govern. >> yeah. and there's -- if we needed any more evidence that this is, threatens the security of our country and that this division the makes us weaker, you need only look to what our adversaries are doing to exploit those divisions. they know, they understand better than most americans

perhaps do how this divisiveness weakens us. and does undermine the ability to govern. it undermines our ability to mobilize in the wayn, that we could as a nation, to meet all the challenges that we face. and i, you know with, it's been a core part of my work at csis to understand better how our adversaries, particularly russia but also china and iran and and other countries, are getting involved in manipulating, trying to manipulate the public discourse in our country. to exacerbate divisions. you know, there's a lot of focus, as you know, on the horse race around elections and our country's interfering on behalf of one candidate or another. we've had that in this last election. iran was assessed to be coming in against trump and russia -- interfere in ways that helped

president-elect trump. but what everyone agrees on who looks at from the government ask and outside the government is that our adversaries share a common objective that transcends elections, and this is that is to deepen our divisions and to undermine trust in our democratic institutions. you know, i'm very concerned that in the face of our adversaries really stepping up their game in that propaganda world, we are unilaterally disarming. and i don't know if you have views on the role of government in understanding and countering foreign disinformation. but there's talk today of getting rid of the office at the state department that is responsible for helping us understand this threat. there's, you know, a lot of pressure in institutions inside

and outside the government to stop working on understanding this threat. and are you concerned about this? and how -- what do you see as the role of our adversaries in exploiting these weaknesses of our own making? >> well, you know, look, we have to look at the beg picture, and the big picture is, clearly, a conflict between autocracy on one hand and autocrats on one hand and democracy. and autocrats, they're interest, i mean, putin's basic is to undermine the strength of the united states. i followed putin for a long time, marley in the intelligence area. and there's one fundamental thing that drives putin, which is to undermine the strength of the united states. and so they do that. they spend their time providing

disinformation trying to divide america. china does the same thing, iran does the same thing. north korea tries to do some of the same things. so autocrats spend their time trying to undermine democracy. i mean, putin marched into ukraine for one reason, because he did not believe people had -- of ukraine, had the right to determine how to govern themselves. and so he marched into a democracy, a sovereign democracy. and terrorists like hamas, you know, attacked israel because they don't like the existence of a democracy like israel in the middle east. and xi in china threatens taiwan, another democracy. and so there is a very real threat to our democracy. and democracy feeds into what

autocrats are saying if we can't govern. if democracies have a problem working together to govern, that gives autocrats the fuel to basically show the world that it's autocrats who can govern when the reality is that's not the case. i mean, we saw assad finally step down as dictator in syria. why? because he failed, he killed a number of innocent people in syria, and that's what autocrats do. that's how they government if we believe in our values, values of freedom and the dig any ifty of -- dignity of the individual and the ability to self-govern, the ability to own joy our free comes and our liberty ares. those are fundamental values. but if we cannot work together to govern in our democracy and

allow these autocrats to be able to undermine our ability to work together which is what they're doing, i mean, this disinformation feeds into social media. we started talking about how young people are impacted. what we found in our poll is that they now, over 70% get their information from social media. it's not it's the, it's not the newspaper, it's social media -- it's not the television, it's not the newspaper. that's exactly what disinformation focuses on, is impacting on social media. so they're feeding this stuff to young minds, and that's what produces some of the results that we saw in our poll. it's feeding into that. so, yes, this is, this is going to be a huge conflict in the 21st century, which is to

determine which form of government, whether it's autocracy or democracy, is going to not only survive, but best represent the hopes and dreams of people. and guess what? it's up to each of us. it's up to each of us to be able the make that happen. i mean, that's, that that's what i try to emphasize with young people is that if they don't like what's going if on, they ought to to jump in and make a difference. hay ought to jump in and make a difference. because the one thing that i learned is that if you get involved, if you build coalitions, if you vote against people who don't do what you want, that's democracy in action. and that's how you change the future of our country and make a difference if people's lives, is by getting involved. and that has always worked in

our democracy. and if young people think that they don't have to to work9 at that, roll up their sleeves and get involved, that's the surest way to weaken our democracy in the future. >> you're absolutely right. and, yes, i think it is such a challenge to sustain that not just with young people, but with adults as well. we'll focus on young people who have perhaps just begun to focus on politics and policy who perhaps got engaged in this most recent election for the first time maybe at the local level, state level, federal level, national level. and their candidate didn't win. so, you know, i always think we need to talk more about the day after the election, right? getting engaged and getting involved is not just about working to get your candidate elected, but that there's so

much more that can be done and must be done starting the day after the election, particularly at your community and local level. but how do we talk to those young people who may be devastated that their candidate at whatever level didn't get elected and, therefore, the system is broken and they just can't go through that again and that they disengage. i know adults who are feeling the same way. but how do you talk to them, encourage them to stay involved, keep at it to bring about change? >> well, you know with, it really goes to the the essence of what our democracy is all about. the fact is that no one election is forever, and we've been through elections where we sometimes wonder what the hell

happened in our democracy. but it is, it is our democracy. it's what our democracy is all about, are those who can bring a message to the american people and are able to convince them that they're trying to do the right thing for the country, and they understand people's frustrations and anger and, you know, economic conditions that may be impacting on our people. so the ability to kind of reach, reach the people, understand what they're concerned about and deliver a positive message about what needs to be done, that is what our democracy is all about. and if you file to do that -- fail to do that, you lose. you lose. but it doesn't mean you lose forever. what you have to do is learn from every election. what is it that you need to do

in order to be able to reach the average american? i think that's something, you know, we've kind of forgotten in politics. politics has been this approach now where you look at different sectors of the voting public whether it's, you know, women or whether it's racial minorities or whether it's people who are workers or people on the right, and we've segmented our society up into, you know, different elements of the voting base. the reality is the message should go to the average american. look, i've been to red states, i've been to blue states. the fact is that families in the red state and families in the blue state share the same concerns. they're worried about educating their kid. they're worried about getting a

home. they're worried about getting a job. they're worried about security. they're worried about health care. they have the same concern. and it's the ability to reach that average citizen, to understand what their concerns are that really makes the difference as to who wins or loses an election. so what we try to do with young people is say, look, one election does not determine the rest of history. it doesn't. two years ago, you know, we had a different election. four years ago we had a different election. we elected a different person. and in two years and four years, we'll elect different members of the congress, and we'll hecht a new president. -- elect a new

president. that's the great part of our democracy, is that you never lock it in. it's not a, it is not a dictatorship. s it is not an autocracy. it's the ability to choose new leaders.

threat office if they don't respond to their. if you are an elected official. one thing i've always thought about in the different jobs and had to make a difference in the lives of i was able to enact

legislation we protected our coastline. if we can do that for healthcare and education and national security and our goal is to make people's lives better. the american dream take that the game sitting back watching television or football game it means that job will then get

involved. >> the promise of democracy capacity to change. the capacity to change but that will only change and that change i think this is a generation of young people who care about the world but i was struck by the entities and they are hurting democracy rather than helping it

they are hurting democracy and being agents of change and frustrated with elections. you have joint coalitions to hold institutions accountable. if you are happy unhappy today find how to strengthen local news organizations.

the sense of the rule of law we had 24 points decline in our courts and justice system. there are reform groups across the country. find out if you care about issues and passes legislation and coalitions that help push for this. there are so many ways to become engaged.

>> one of the real concerns the fact that young people but they don't have an understanding of what the rule is. they do not understand what the branches do. do not understand what they are about how it's supposed to

function and balances in democracy. that is critical our ability to make sure it's never centralized and it limits power. when you create the system you can create gridlock but is the ability elected leaders together to make sure democracy functions

and placed trust in elected leaders in their own ability and our democracy to be part of that don't like what's going on, you can make a change. we are stuck in a bowl, we have the ability to make it happen.

one thing iraq has as i had a chance on people's lives in the chairman of the budget committee and the office of management and budget president clinton deal with the deficit make sure we exercise the past agreements that reduce the deficit the pass in the bush and clinton administration. the fact that we not only

ballasted they will divide with that is young people need to understand to make a difference whether or not those left is in our country our country can be a renaissance in the. >> so much advised defendant in the understanding of technology. and i worry that we got policy

to understand technology and civics to our national community and it's important we bring us together. make sure they are inspired and tremendous potential

the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent to completely remarks prior to the next roll call vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: it's not entirely clear yet how or when congress will conclude its end of the year business. but when the senate does adjourn, i'll just about mark the end of my tenure as a republican lead er. i've made it this clear this

year that our colleagues haven't seen the last of me. i still fully intend to keep frustrating my critics in the years ahead. while i'm still in command of this particular podium, i thought it might -- i might make a few observations i picked up along the way. folks come to washington to do one of two things. either to make a point or to make a difference. to make a point or to make a difference. it's usually not that hard to tell who is doing which, especially in situations like the one we're in right now.

people who are here to make a difference recognize pretty qu quickly you never get everything you want, but often you can get quite a lot. and the folks who prefer to make a point have a funny habit of reminding us out loud how poorly they understand that fact. i don't care to count how many times i've reminded our colleagues in our -- and our house countercounterparts how harmful it is to shut the government down. and how foolish it is to bet your own side won't take the blame for it. recent history doesn't leave a whole lot of room for interpretation on that one. when you try to use normal

government function as a bargaining chip, you pay a political price. that said, if i took it personally every time my advice went unheeded, i probably wouldn't have spent as long as i have in this particular job. yet, in a -- getting a legislative outcome in the senate requires large majorities of people who don't share all the same views to actually work together toward outcomes where they do see eye to eye. we've had divided government here most of the time i've been in this job. neither side has owned the place. you have a choice -- do nothing or try to find things

you can agree on and do them together. with the exception of just one short period of a few months, this place hasn't seen a filibuster-proof senate in 50 years. getting things done almost inevitably requires dealing with a lot of people who disagree with you on most things. in the interest of stable, enduring outcomes, is actually a good thing. anyone who comes to the senate hoping for a rigid, hard line conformity and prompt action is barking up the wrong tree.

i've heard folks who like making a point, they'd rather serve with 30 colleagues who all agreed than a majority who didn't. so if you want to accomplish absolutely nothing, nothing, sign up with the group that would rather serve with 30 people who all agreed than those who had differences. everyone i know who's interested in making a difference understands pretty quickly that it requires that kind of interaction in order to achieve something. leading means letting folks take a walk when they need to and rallying together when we need

to. i've been so grateful over the years to lead majorities that embrace these necessary rhythms. i'm grad fied by the trust they've placed in -- gratified by the trust they've placed in me repeatedly to determine what that moment requires. and i'm so proud of the outcomes we've achieved for our country. i'm looking forward to spending the next congress as a member of another majority, in a set of capable hands, rooting hard for my friend john thune and the leadership team our conference has assembled around him. there will be no shortage of important work to do, and i'll stand ready to do my part.

back in 2007, my first day in this job, i told our colleagues, quote, the senate has no claim on greatness, unless its power is put to great ends. and i stated my view that the first duty of government is the defense and protection of its citizens. the senate is great. so is the nation that it represents. but today our nation faces one great challenge from forces betting on our decline. and so, that first duty of government is the task to which i'll devote my efforts in the coming years. our prosperity and security

depend on an order forged by american leadership and american strength. both of which require our urgent atte attention. the arsenal of democracy must be res restored, peace through strength must once again actually mean something other than just a slogan, and i'm going to do everything in my power to help continue this to be the greatest country in the world. no one can do what we do internationally. and that's where i'm going to put my focus for the next two years. thank you all for the opportunity.

the presiding officer: the chair recognizes the majority leader. mr. schumer: mr. president. i just listened to my friend, leader mcconnell.

mr. schumer: mr. president. i just listened to my friend, leader mcconnell, deliver what may be his final remarks on the senate floor as republican leader. today i want to wish him and his family my very best as he prepares to serve in this chamber in a different role next year. everyone knows leader mcconnell and i had plenty of disagreements over the years, on matters of policies and politics, but when the time was right we found ways to work tog together, to get very important things done for this country. today i'd like to acknowledge and thank him for those moments. we worked together, for example, to pass the national security supplemental, to stand with our friends in ukraine, hold the line against vladimir putin and safeguard america's national

security interests around the world. i appreciate his commitment to these principles, no matter who occupies the oval office. we also worked together in the early days of the covid-19 pandemic, to get the cares act done, and in the aftermath of the capitol attack on january 6, leader mcconnell worked with me and the other leaders to bring the session -- the senate back into session so we could finish the job of certifying the 2020 election. these are just a few of the examples showing how two very different leaders found common ground to move things forward. in each instance, leader mcconnell's actions benefited our country. so, i thank you him for those moments. i wish him, his wife elaine, and his entire family our best wishes, and i know all of my colleagues on our side of the aisle join me in those best wishes and respect. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 850, serena raquel murillo, of california, to be united states district judge for the central district of california, signed by 18 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the

nomination of serena raquel murillo, of california, to be u.s. district court judge for the central district of california shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are ordered, mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso.

the clerk: mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. so far beyond the people don't know get around it. elon musk has a lot of government contracts. i think we need to dig and as a millionaire himself, what is he sway? concerning so back to go back to the original agreement we have a solution.

>> they want a solution. just got to get back the agreement we had. an audible question. [inaudible]

>> anything else. >> i don't know because that was the agreement. that was and how he unfolding he did a magnificent job and it could really help american reauthorized so there are here

that are important. community suffering from disaster funding so tactical mistake. approval ratings are going down a little bit he says things and tries to make it seemed like they are true and they are the majority party. you should be accomplice, that's

not how it works even if he stayed ability times. there and all but for the american people wondering whether or not there kid will get a cancer treatment or travel, people forget how the government operates so that is the real harm. >> he came in with me. undercut are billionaires.

they've never had to worry and the americans care about it. the debt limit and a bipartisan way in several years ago donald trump. he shouldn'tin be used as a bargaining tactic. and already agreed upon vitiated

deal. >> absolutely booked flights everyday. >> a lot of time from yesterday and they come intoas far as i

know the conversations are. >> aside going back to disaster the vote appropriations bill all

their days. >> accuser. thank you, sir. >> what exactly -- >> no. >> communications have been reopened.

>> republicans want to know -- i'll let him be for himself on that. we have a leader who speaks for us.

and they are working on that. the vote on any bill they put out so that is at the table. >> i think the lines of communication are open. we had a deal.

>> it wasn't part of the plan that we agreed upon. they leave some of it out.

tyler way. i don't think rfk. >> the government has been working on the district. >> he's right behind you. [laughter] >> we will stay where we are.

>> i don't want to discuss it but it -- [laughter] >> what was the update? >> he doesn't have a proposal. >> is he communicating? >> i think you will have to discuss but they have not provided a proposal. they've only given us a disaster. >> stay here this weekend? >> what was the cheering about? >> number of work indicating they will be with us.

and a foreign policy and independent and bipartisan in d.c. for global health security and richard burr. and national drug control policy nominated by president biden, he was sworn is as director 2021. our focus today, what is the story to tell? over the past three years in the biden administration and the opioid epidemic, hundreds of thousands of american lives over the past decade 70% in recent

years committed to fentanyl. we will hear more about that and what's worked and what's not worked in with the future looks like. very positive news 17% drop in overdose deaths between june of 2023 and 24. we will talk about the drivers and what we know has worked and the unknowns around what me driving these changes. the end of the biden administration and the end of the second trump term question of transition. the unfinished business key steps in progress.

>> doctor in public health expert and a diplomat and colleges of medical science and masters of public health alabama in birmingham. 2014, ran the health department in west virginia and graduated the west virginia for public bureau in 2018 a special focus on overdose deaths opioid epidemic. answers successfully republican

governors. and the prevention overdose deaths. in the conversation colleges thank our markable production team and you in particular we are joined with this

conversation being fed through the skin channel and grateful they can join us today. where we are and what the future looks like. the u.s. life expectancy americans are beginning to acknowledge and think about more seriously involved. synthetic biology area and escalation and lives lost has been shocking in the numbers

rose to over 100,000. we went to eastern kentucky in with my colleague. in a moment of awakening when relating and west virginia first responders mobilizing cooperation. on this problem. and we will hear about that

stigma or shame of law enforcement public health sectors. and the epidemic dominated in international security and law enforcement china, mexico and india and others. it rose remarkably high in foreign policy.

we witnessed some of that we saw you in china in beijing in june continue to see a foundational bipartisan cooperation which remains fundamental to our ability to achieve this. a 17% drop and we need to think about that. it's fragile, i think we agree it is fragile to be careful to understand. thank you for making time in service for our country. >> congratulations on the progress share with us, where are we are you thinking about was been achieved and what is the way forward? >> thank you for having us here.

we work with wonderful people. americans across the country are suffering. i will in a town of 1800 people's everything but the people observed the sum of the biggest challenges army as a people, i wanted to help them in their addiction. the extra barriers were there.

in the emergency room. economic prosperity. challenges in both global policy. 31% live. we will have to put policies in place as quickly as possible.

it has to be stopped and turned around and go in the right direction. we see not in the last three to four years and now we see the change. we notice a lot of work to be done. there will be. more at the dinnr table. policies that have made that impact george important to make them aware without going to

provide a. it is so critical to us and it is reporting on the ground as a local official. it is important to catch up in the morning to realize and the medication is. and making it more affordable

and available at the lowest cost ever. a fraction in this. there are so many pieces.

and get through this. and across the board.

they provide this. the third component as well as the bad guys. make treatment and getting trust. that was predominant. we don't work with companies like the people's republic of china and others and develop

longer so it is not only in this livelihood as well as across the board. >> i'd like to follow-up. we had a conversation back in the summer. one thing you said at the end of the conversation stuck in my mind. ...

i'd like to follow-up. on each of these elements. we had a great conversation back in the summer on this. one point that you made toward the end of that conversation stuck in my mind which was, yes, we have made remarkable progress there is x million available in the marketplace in america now today versus earlier. but we still do not have, there is still a huge gap in the manufacturing capabilities at an affordable price. for americans. and that requires a long-term and very strategic outlook on how to get industry motivated, and scented really, to create that capability.

they will need a market before we go to real scale. we still have a gap there. there is probably still some demand that is not matter we should be generating demand. say a bit more about that. >> i think this is really important to understand the fact that often times someone would go would be getting a nonfatal overdose 10, 12, 15 times before they finally overdosed and died. we believe the first time somebody overdoses is a cry for help. often times, our health system society is not listening to those voices so it becomes important that we make a life saving education far and wide available and affordable and accessible. i will tell you a story. when i visited the navy of lands in washington state, they were still having to purchase it for about $80 a kid.

across the country, it was available for 50 if not $24. we work with the state to make it available at a lower price. and this place where people can pick it up free. and, one little girl picked up this kit and she was going up the hill and she found her grandma at the same time overdosing. providing it right there and then. she had been taught how to use it and it saved her life. what do you put a price on that for. the fact today is that we could save a lot more, many more lives if we had more. so, it becomes important for us to continue pushing not only the availability but also the accessibility that requires the production. we believe that millions of more doses that could be realized across the country. we yielded more life savings. of course, you have to connect people to treatment.

but, the first step, as i said, you cannot treat someone if they have already passed away. the first step is to make sure that they are alive in the first place, and we are listening to their crying voices. >> what do we do to expand the market. the production in the market, what more needs to happen? >> so, i think one of the basic things, this comes from my business background, producers have to have some certainty in their ability to be able to produce. one of the things we are doing announcing recently, the purchase of $3 million. so, i think that it will be very important while we are not encumbering the local purchases, but to figure out how to guarantee larger purchases like we do for vaccines, like we do for other drugs and medications.

we have to figure out that we can have a predictive supply chain model where producers understand that they are making that and it will be purchased and utilized. we cannot have product sitting on the shelves, first of all, expire, while people are dying on the street. so we have to build in some predictability from the federal and state governments and local government standpoints. so that the manufacturers are aware that this is how much is needed and that is a kind of work that we will be doing. >> i want to relate one personal story, it has to do with people 's consciousness around the need for this and perhaps to put it into your medical cabinet or put it into your bag or your car. i lived on capitol hill. i do not live very far from national stadium. i do not live very far from the public housing there.

within the last two years there were two tragic episodes in which there had been a delivery of opioids laced with fentanyl in which there were large numbers of folks that went into overdosed. several died. unfortunately, -- fortunately, several survived. it was shocking to the community these were respected long-term users, chronic users, but many very respected members of their community. now, when i thought about this i thought i ride my bike to this neighborhood periodically. i walk through this neighborhood periodically. am i carrying some form of this? no. i have asked my friends at different points in time, do you actually own and carry in your car or in your medical cabinet or the like, and it is very mixed, it is still early days, i think. i can begin to see that it is beginning to get mainstreamed,

in terms of transportation and schools and public settings in putting the pre-positions of the cabinets. but, at a personal level, people getting into the habit of thinking, this is something that i need to have at the ready and be comfortable to have the know-how to use. are we making progress in that way? >> absolutely we are. when we lost the white house challenge to save lives from overdoses, we now have over 260 affiliations of institutions across 50 states. from the united states postal service. two airlines, school systems and others. just sent l.a. school district, for example, has begun to use, they have used this several times in the school system so imagine it can be no larger greater tragedy than children

dying because it was not available. that is what we are trying to make sure happens is that it becomes more available. we have asked each of the cabinet secretaries to consider that in the government buildings as well because it is really important on this issue to be able to walk the talk. we want to make sure that we are doing the same. i carry it with me. the fact today is that it is no different than having a life-saving tool because often times, that comes in the way people are not even expecting. they could be ordering what they think is adderall online or oxycontin or xanax. it turns out that between five and seven out of those 10 pills that are ordered online have potential to overdose off of

fentanyl. that is a part where it is so critical. >> thank you. on the expanded treatment, a couple of questions. one is, it is very important, the attitudes of medical providers. you are expanding their opportunity for primary physicians to be able to prescribe the therapies that are needed. it requires a, a bit of a shift in attitude among the medical providers. as we have seen in other instances like the hpv vaccine which, the use of that early in the last decade had dropped and president obama put a commission together for a year and they came back and said the key to this is getting on board our medical providers, medical physicians and there was a

concentrated effort and it turned things around pretty dramatically and pretty fast. say a bit about your dialogue with medical providers, with the ama, with others. are we making progress? is there much more work to be done there in order to make them more comfortable and playing this role of taking on something that they thought up to this point was a little difficult, a little stigmatized, a little dangerous for them or risky for them. now they can take this up and it is very important that they do. >> so, first of all, from a data standpoint, we know that, you know, we do a certain type of full survey data and we find how many are suffering from addiction don't get treatment. we see several over the last three or four years which is encouraging. from a policy standpoint, we are moving a lot of barriers to make treatment accessible anytime,

anywhere, 247 because effective today is, if someone gets up at 9:00 p.m. and they feel like, this is enough, i want to go get help, i want to change my life around, they called the 988 line and they say, well, we have an appointment 30 days from today. that does not work for that person. in this business and in this condition, you have to be able to help people when and where they want to. so, there has been an increased number of providers. yeah, there is a long way to go. i say that because on one hand i am very encouraged by the young generation of providers. this clinician like doctor zorn or practitioners or physician assistants who are stepping up. into her looking at this saying, look, when 47, 48 million americans suffer from addiction and i think they are not part of my patients on my panel, then it

is me who is missing it because that means i am not looking for that. and i should be. so, the fact today is at least the young generation of providers are looking at this as a way to address it. now, for those in my generation, it will be really important to continue to push the importance. right now, not a love medical and nursing schools are teaching curriculum. we know from evidence. when you are teaching that an affirmative years, they will learn have an interest in go to get trained in it and be able to become providers. but that is one challenge that we have. we have to make sure it is part of the curriculum. we have done a lot of work with schools and organized medicine to make sure that that happens. the american medical association very much forward leaning on this and we have been able to move forward on this. second, i think that it is also

important to develop reimbursement systems that support providers and patients in the treatment of their diseases. we know that when reimbursements increase or are added on for certain condition, magically, those conditions are diagnosed more often and treated more often. so that is also important. the last thing that i would say is parity. it is very important. somehow in this country we figured out how to remove the head from the body and we are all suffering because of that. we work very closely with department of labor to make sure that we are enforcing parity laws that require us, all of us, to treat the diseases of mental health and addiction the same way that you would treat diseases like diabetes and hypertension because addiction is a chronic disease. though, these policy changes that have occurred have allowed us to make that progress, but there is still a long way to go

to make sure that we remove the stigma. look, it exists in families and society, in our communities, but it is also alive and well in the healthcare centers, to. >> thank you. on the expanded treatment issue, there remains controversy and opposition to what may be called substitution therapy, harm reduction measures the presiding. thanks for the correction. ms. baldwin: as if in legislation and notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 1318, the women's suffrage national monument location act which was received from the house and is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 1318, an acts to authorize the location of a national monument on the national mall to commemorate the women's suffrage movement, and

for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to the measure? is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. ms. baldwin: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. baldwin: i know of no further debate on the bill. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate, the question is on passage of the bill. all those in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill is passed. ms. baldwin: i ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. baldwin: madam president, i rise today to speak to the women's suffrage national monument location act to did heing nature the -- designate the national monument be built

on the national mall. i was proud to introduce this bill with senator blackburn as she and i represent the first and the final states to ratify the 19th amendment and grant women the right to vote across the nation. the national mall honors some of the most important features of our shared american story, conspicuously absent from this portrayal of our nation's history, however, is the story of women's suffrage of suffrage. in fact the national mall receives over 24 million visitors, none of the works on the national mall are dedicated to women. with we have introduced this legislation to correct this glaring omission on the national mall. women's suffrage was only made possible through the fight of multiple generations of activists of all bounds who

joined -- backgrounds. elizabeth stanton and lacritia organized the first women's right convention in seneca falls in 1848 where they declared all men and women are created equal. sojourner truth gave her famous ain't i woman speech in 1851 where she challenged the women's suffrage women to include black women. susan b. anthony was arrested for voting and went on to establish the women's suffrage association. cherry cap took up the helm of

that organization after anthony and travelled around the country organizing for the ratification of the 19th amendment. e he sh dsh eneze led a women's suffrage procession down the national mall, and women of color -- alice hall and lucy burns led activists of peaceful civil -- led acts of peaceful civil disobedience including silent sentinels who picketed at the white house continuously from 1917 to 1919. there are countless other women who fought and continue to fight for true equality for women in this country. without the story of how women

fought to secure our right participation in our democracy, our national mall is incomplete. this monument is just as much about honoring our past as it is about inspiring our future. every young girl, every child, every adult who travels to our nation's capitol should see themselves reflected there. they should know that they belong in the halls of government and their stories belong in our nation's history and that they belong on the national mall. and with that, i would yield to the senior senator from tennessee, senator blackburn. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam president. i thank my colleague for her wonderful work on this issue. and since 2020, we have roshgd to recognize that 100-year celebration of women achieving

the right to vote and to tell these stories. as she said, her state was the first, tennessee was the 36th state, and our colleagues who have read about the war of the roses and that summer of 1920 when suffragests descended on the capital and those who were for suffrage wore a yellow rose and those who were anti wore a r rose ida b. wells, among others led the fight. and what a fight it was. and, finally, they pushed forward with the 36th state granting ratification. so the histories in our states

are rich on this issue, and we want all americans to appreciate the work that went into women gaining that right to vote. now, my colleague mentioned that there were 40 monuments, memorials, statues, and historic sites on the mall. not a single one of these 40 are specific to women. 22 are dedicated to individual men, 10 to military history and veterans, three to foreign relations, two to private organizations, one to u.s. postal history, one to the history of the u.s. canals and one to the history of horses. now, all of these have found their way on to the mall, and

what we have done is to work with the park service, find a place that would be perfect, the mall's constitution garden. it's a 50-acre space dedicated during our nation's bicentennial as a living memorial to the founding of the republic. and in this garden it is appropriate that we recognize the work of women to help preserve the freedoms and the liberties that we have here in this nation. so i thank my colleagues for passing this legislation. the house passed it unanimously last year so it is appropriate that as we finish and complete this 118th congress that we set aside time and that we pass this legislation to recognize the

work, the powerful work of women who gave so much of their life to support freedom, liberty, and voting rights. thank you, madam president. ms. baldwin: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: madam president, as if in legislative session -- i ask that the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: i ask unanimous consent that the committee on energy and natural resources be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 6395 and the vote on to an en bloc consideration of the following bills, calendar number 596, which is s. 3195 and h.r. 6395.

the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measures en bloc? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measures en bloc. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. i now ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment, where applicable, be agreed to, the bills be amended, if amended, be considered read a third time and passed and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

quorum call:

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. hickenlooper: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. hickenlooper: i ask that it be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. the quorum call will be vitiated. mr. hickenlooper: as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on energy and natural resources be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 2997 and the senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following bills, calendar number 581, s. 1553 and h.r. 2997. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measures en -- enbloc. without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed en bloc. mr. hickenlooper: i ask unanimous consent that the

committee-reported substitute amendment where applicable be agreed to, the bills as amended if amended be considered read a third time and passed and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table all en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hickenlooper: madam president, mesa county, colorado, out in the far west part of the state, is bursting opportunities for economic development. the convey act which i'm calling to the senate to pass today will help make sure there is sufficient space to continue that growth. this bill will direct the transfer of federal land near clifton, colorado, to the local mesa county government to support their domestic economic development. specifically, the bill accelerates the sale of 31 acres of land near interstate 70 in clifton, colorado. it's a parcel of land that was previously set aside for the

bureau reclamations grand valley reclamation project. but they've indicated to relinquish the 31 acres considered in the sale. the county will pay fair market value for the 30 acres of land of the federal government has already determined it no longer needs this land and mesa county has plans for ways to put it to work. this is a win-win for the federal government and for mesa county, for colorado and our country. by pacing the convey act today, we'll finally push this land transfer over the finish line. madam president, i thank you, and i yield the floor. mr. barrasso: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: i would just like to say a few words if i may about the senate passing s. 1553. in wyoming we refer to it as the ranch act which stands for resiliency for ranching and

natural conservation health. this is an important piece of legislation for my home state of wyoming and for all western states. livestock raising plays a critical role in my state of wyoming and a lot of the rocky mountain west. it's important to maintain range land health, and this is what this bill does. this also supports ranchers' livelihoods. natural disasters, emergencies occur. they can have a huge impact on so many of our rural communities. in fact this past summer we had significant wildfires. this is just one example of how bad it can get and how wickly. when -- quickly. when ranchers face the loss of the use of their normal public land allotments for grazing, they do need access to emergency pastures in a timely manner for their animals to continue to graze. so the ranch act allows for temporary use of vacant grazing allotments during extreme events and disasters which regrettably happen more frequently than we would like. this bill promotes resilient and healthy range lands.

it also supports effective grazing management for the west. the ranch act is going to provide land management agencies the authorities that they need to help ranchers and rural communities facing emergency situations. so i'm so pleased it's passed the senate today by unanimous consent. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

[cheering and applause] [cheering and applause] hi everybody. to most of you know this story the night before christmas? >> some people say no. this is the first time that you will hear it, i guess.

this is a classic. the night before christmas and all through the house not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse. the stockings were hung by the chimney with care in hopes that saint nicholas soon would be there. the children were nestled all snug in their beds while visions of sugar plums danced in their heads. and mama and i had just settled down for a long winter's nap. there arose such a clatter. i sprang from my bed to see what was the matter. away to the window i flew like a flash i opened up the shutters and throughout the/. two objects below.

when what to my wondering eyes should i hear but a miniature sleigh and tie -- eight tiny reindeer. a little old driver so lively and quick, i knew in a moment it must be saint nick. he whistled and shouted and called them by name. now -- are now dancer now dancer and vixen on comment and cupid on donner and blitzen. to the top of the porch to the top of the wall now -- away -- away -- away all. the wild hurricane fly and they meet with an obstacle out in the sky. so up to the house top they flew in saint nicholas, to.

i heard on the roof the prancing and falling of each little who. i was turning around down the chimney state nicholas came. they were all tarnished with ashes and soot it a bundled of toys get flown on his back and a pedal or just opening his sack. [laughter] his dimples how mary, his chief were like roses, his nose like a cherry. up like a bow and the. of his chin was as white as the snow part of our -- the efforts of

our colleagues in the house would be, of course, not only to keep government open but to extend the national flood insurance program, which is also scheduled to expire, i think tonight at midnight. the national flood insurance program, as i think most people know, is hardly perfect, but it's important. it's almost impossible to buy flood insurance in the private s sector. many people, unfortunately, when they buy homeowner's insurance think that their homeowner's insurance covers them for flood. it does not. many americans, unfortunately, found that out, for example, with the horrible flooding in

appa appalachia. vir virtually all of our friends and neighbors in the appalachia area in south carolina, kentucky, florida who were victims of hurricane helene did not have flood insurance. i think many of them had homeowner's, but they're not covered for flood. the private sector, i don't want to overstate this, but for the most part it's almost impossible to get flood insurance in the private sector. that's why we have a national flood insurance program. the national flood insurance program is not exactly a model of efficiency. under president biden, it's been screwed up even more. fema, which is in charge of our flood inch program -- flood insurance program, implemented something called risk rating 2.0. it's been a disaster.

ity -- it's a mess. it looks like something that my beagle used to hide under my back porch, but it's better than nothing. it's better than nothing. we're going to have a new chair of our banking committee in the senate, as you know, madam president, and senator tim scott. senator scott has asked senator mike rounds and i to work on trying to start over with our national flood insurance program, maybe even extend it to some other hazards. but tim has asked mike and i to try to design a brand-new program that looks like somebody designed it on purpose, and we're going to get started on that.

indeed, we already have started. but in the meantime, the current program, as bad as it is, expires tonight at midnight. what would be -- and we want to continue it. what would be the result of that? it would mean that as of 12:01 tonight, the flood insurance program can no longer write new policies. now, i don't want to scare people. if you already have flood insurance through what we call the nfip, which is just an acronym for the national program, you policy won't expire, if it's not at its termination date. you'll continue to have flood coverage, but you can't buy a new policy. that will have a huge impact on the real estate market in

america. many institutions will not loan money to a new homeowner, or a homeowner who is trying to buy a home, if they can't get flood insurance, because the mortgage companies just don't want to take that risk. we've already seen, for a variety of reasons, the extraordinary increase in the price of a home in america. i was reading the other day that 10, 15, 20 years ago the average age of the first-time homebuyer in america was 28. today it's 38. why are people having to wait so much longer to buy a home? it's not because they don't want to buy a home. it's because they need time to save up the money for a home. but my point is that the price of homes, for a variety of reasons, in part because of

inflation, the price of a home has just risen dramatically. i don't think any of us want to do anything to make the price of a home go up even further. i want to say a word about louisiana. we have about five million people who have flood insurance, in our flood insurance program. about 10% of those are in louisiana. those who have flood insurance in louisiana are, for the most part -- i'm trying to think of a stronger way of saying it -- the vast majority of the people in louisiana who have flood insurance are working men and working women. our coast, for example, is a working coast. some people like to paint the picture of the national flood insurance program serving

multimillionaires with multimillion-dollar homes on the coast. that's not louisiana, i can assure you. my people are working people. we don't even have a coast like some states that have those type of homes. if you travel to grand isle or port fouchon in my state, you would see that. these are middle-class americans that depend on the national flood insurance program. i've worked very hard, many of us have, to try to improve the national flood insurance program through the years. i've been working on it since first day i came to the united states senate. frankly, i didn't get a lot of cooperation from leadership of

the banking committee, which has jurisdiction over the national flood insurance program. i don't want to make a promise i can't keep, but our banking committee is going to be under new leadership, as i just said, in senator scott, our new chairman has directed senator rounds and i to try to come up with a program that's a vast improvement over what we have. i'll sum up by saying what i'm going to propose to do here in a moment is to extend the status quo until september 30. it will extend the national flood insurance program that we have right now, imperfect as it may be ugly as it may be, and it is, it really does look like something my beagle used to hide under the back porch. the american people deserve better, but it's better than

nothing, and without it, it will have a huge impact on the real estate market. my bill would extend the program, no changes, until september 30, 2025. hopefully by then we'll have a new bill to present to you, madam president, and my coll colleagues, and it will contain a national flood insurance program that is much better than what we have right now. so, as if in legislative session, madam president, and notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs be discharged from further consideration of s. 4772 -- that's the bill i just

talked about -- and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. and i further ask, madam president, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. paul: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: reserving the right to object. once again, we are asked to extend the flood program without any reforms to protect the taxpayers. like many federal programs, the flood program is well intentioned, but may very well be the best real-life example of a moral hazard. the program covers about five million policyholders and provides over a trillion dollars in coverage. we're told that the program is funded through insurance pre premiums, but charging below the market price on insurance and capping how much these rates can

rise inevitably has led to shortfalls. they're out of money. they're always out of money. a 2014 report by the government accountability office founds that the flood program collected as much as $17 billion fewer in premiums than the market would have demanded. so when the program inevitably found itself in need of money, it in theory borrowed from the taxpayers. not that the taxpayers had any choice in the matter. as they often are, we're on the hook regardless whether we wanted to be or not. just a few years ago, the flood program owed over $30 billion to the taxpayers. congress later just canceled that debt. poof, it's gone. it disappeared. but the flood program has not made any further repayments to the taxpayers, and still today owes over $20 billion in debt.

so the taxpayers are expected to cough up money whenever the program needs it, but the program couldn't seem to be in a hurry to pay the taxpayers back. perhaps the greatest insult to the taxpayers is the lack of true limits on this delinquent program. there are no limits on how many claims can be filed or how much money can be received by a policyholder filing multiple claims. rather than encourage people to leave flood-prone areas, it encourages people to stay and rebuild where it continues to flood. thousands of instances the program encourages people to rebuild and rebuild and rebuild again. according to the pew charitable trust, over 150,000 properties have been rebuilt over and over again. they say the definition of insanity is doing things over

and over again and never understanding you're doing the wrong thing. in fact, 25% to 30% of flood program claims are made by policyholders whose properties flood time and time again. over 2,000 properties have flooded more than ten times. we bail them out every time. one home in batchelor, louisiana, flooded 40 times, and received a total of $428,000 in flood insurance payments. doesn't seem like we're learning our lesson. doesn't seem like that's encouraging good building behavior. it's encouraging the opposite. if you can believe it, that isn't even the most times a house has been paid for. in virginia, one home flooded 41 times and received more than $600,000 in payments. it is argued, no matter how much a home is worth, that the

federal government will only cover the first $350,000 in flood insurance coverage. 250 thousand for the structure, another 100,000 for the contents. that is true, but the $350,000 limit is only applied per event. that's how you wind up with a home that floods 40 times and gets paid over $400,000. what if the home that flooded 40 times was paid 350 thousand times? what if it's a $10 million home and it has $300,000 of damage 40 times? that means the policyholder receives $14 million from the government program. it was also mentioned during previous debates that there really isn't a private flood insurance market. there is a private insurance market that will cover beyond $350,000. rich people use the government

to insure the beach house up to $350,000. there is a market. the government flood program is a disaster for many reasons, but chief among them is it crowds out the private market for the first $350,000 in losses. that's why the private flood insurance market is so small. $350,000 may be enough for most people, but instead of letting private markets to work, the government has put the responsibility on flood losses on taxpayers. can you imagine having to withstand your home flooding 10, 20, or 40 times? they don't have to worry about rebuilding time and again. the congressional budget office found that the flood program tends to benefit the wealthy and

23% of the subsidized coastal sprols were not -- policies were not the primary residents. people who don't live on the gulf shore, people who don't live on the atlantic coast, people who live in middle america are ensuring the second homes of rich people. one in of five of the homes being insured are rich people, ordinary taxpayers in kansas or kentucky are asked to pay for the insurance for the second home of rich people. how in the world would that make any sense? government forces the taxpayers to pay and rebuild the elite summer homes of the rich. it's estimated that the national average replacement cost of homes in government flood insurance programs that these homes are valued at over $400,000. so the average home by this government program that's

supposed to help the poor, the average home that we're ensuring, conscious -- insuring, the government is insuring is over $400,000 and it's people's second house. how should we keep borrowing billions of dollars to insure rich people's homes. in fact, it seems to cater directly to the wealthy. nearly 80% of the flood program's policies are located in counties that rank within the top 20% of income. enough is enough. it's an insult to rob taxpayers to give to the wealthy. this is why i offered an amendment that require the flood program to only cover your primary residence. so if this is your only house and for some reason you have to keep building in your flood zone, you would be eligible. if it's your beach home or second house, you would not be eligible.

we might put a cap on it. if you have more than a half a million dollar house, you have to buy your own insurance. the government doesn't pay for that. these are reasonable amendments, reasonable reforms, reasonable changes that have been offered for years and never get done because people come with a song and dance of people needing help and we must help people but nobody ever says, are some of these people people who should be helping themselves? and that's why it's always bankrupt. what i would recommend is that my amendment be added to the bill. we can reauthorize the program, we can refund it but we would limit who it goes to. the money would not go to homes over $500,000, it would have to be your primary home, not your second home. to me that's a modest proposal, it won't fix the whole thing but it's very, very reasonable. so i will offer that today. if the senator from louisiana wants to pass it tonight, we can

pass it tonight, all he has to do is agree to my amendment. no one is here to object. it's a unanimous consent arrangement. he can agree right now, we can pass it, the program from now on will seclude people from homes over half a million dollars and people with beach houses. how reasonable is that? he can do that. i ask the senator to amend his bill, the bill, as amended be considered read a third time and passed and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: does the senator so modify his request? mr. kennedy: reserving the right to object. madam president, to request my colleague from kentucky to modify, reserving the right to do that. madam president, i want to make

a couple of points. first, the flood insurance program doesn't -- the majority of the homes covered under the flood insurance program are not second homes, and it's not a giveaway for millionaires. if you just come spend some time in louisiana and in other states that aren't even on the coast, you'll see that these are working people -- working men and women. .2, the most that you can receive, the most you can buy under the national flood insurance program is $250,000, that's it and that's for structural damage. you can buy an extra $100,000 for -- for contents.

point three. everybody in america is not rich who owns a home. the median -- median cost of a home in america today is $406,000. that means that half of homes cost less but half cost way more. that's the result of a lot of factors, including, but not limited to inflation. as i said earlier, it's one of the reasons that the average first-time home buyer in america today is no longer 28, it's 38. it just costs a lot to buy a home today. so when someone talks about a $500,000 home and somebody being rich who owns a $500,000 home, i

don't think that accurately reflects reality. i just don't. number two. the idea to extend this only to a primary residence. i know a lot of hardworking men and women who work a day job and have also saved their money and bout rental homes that they rent out and try to build equity in to give them something to live on during retirement. these are not wealthy people. these are working women and working men, and i don't know -- they're not millionaires living on the coast. that's just a jauntice view of those folks. i don't know why we were would -- why we would deny those people to not be able to build

their equity. they are not going to have the money to get insurance for flood insurance. no institution would loan it to them. finally the point i would make, and i say this with all due respect. i just spent four years listening to some of my colleagues talking about the big, bad, nasty rich people in america. you know, i -- when i came up success, financial success and otherwise, and certainly there are ways to define success other than finances, but one of the ways in america we do so -- we do assign success is financially. and i was raised in america to admire people who worked hard and save their money and invested their money and became successful financially.

i just -- i regret that we've reached the point in america, and i hope it ends under the new administration where -- where we just constantly go around denigrating success in america, including, and not limited to financial and otherwise, and for that reason, madam president, with respect, i decline the request to modify. the presiding officer: objection to the modification is heard. is there objection to the original request. mr. paul: madam president. the presiding officer: the junior senator from kentucky. mr. paul: reserving the right to object. let the record show that what i have offered is a way to limit government insurance to regular people of modest income but to say rich people with beach houses shouldn't have government subsidized insurance. the program costs billions of dollars.

it's 30, 40, $50 billion in the hole any way you want to miesh it. -- measure it. what would the most obvious reform be for a flood program that is billions of dollars in the hole? why don't we tell rich people, buy your own insurance? does that mean i don't like rich people? no probably nobody in this body appreciates people who work hard and make a good living. nothing against that, other than we shouldn't give them free stuff. you got a yacht, invite me over. i'm not like buying insurance with taxpayer money. you've got a yacht, i will ride on your yacht, i will come to your party, but i will not use your insurance with -- buy your insurance with taxpayer money. the whole government's $2 trillion in the hole. so let the record reflect that i offered to amend this program, let it go on, and we would

seclude only the homes of people who have second homes over $500,000. that was rejected. i have another offer. this would be the second amendment. and this offer will be if $500,000 for your second home means you're still poor and need help from the government, what about if your second home costs $2 million or more should we buy your insurance? should the government subsidize your insurance? i brought along a couple of pictures, these are pektures you -- pictures of people you might have heard of their home. this is president biden's home in delaware, it is worth $207 million and, yes, it is eligible for government insurance. does anybody think we should buy insurance for president biden's home? let's see what else we have. oh, nicholas cage. boy, that's a nice house.

$4.2 $4.2 $4.2 $4.2 million in new orleans. i'd pay $20 to go to the movie. i don't want to pay $20, i would go to his moves of movies, but i don't want to pay that much. let's see who else is eligible for government insurance. matt damon. he's had a lot of great movies. his place cost $20 million and it's eligible for government insurance too. do you think matt damon would be embarrassed to find out the government is subsidizing his first $250,000? shouldn't we all be embarrassed. the program is in the hole and we want to renew programs. it's losing money, keep doing the same thing. maybe matt damon can buy his own

insurance. phil collins, his home is worth $40 billion in biscayne, florida. i can't manl how we couldn't come to a compromise. if ordinary people have $500,000, if we went up to $2 million, we would clip fill collins, nicholas cage and a few others. anybody else? let's see who else we have. now, cher, she's been doing well for a long time. she has a $42 million place in miami beach, also eligible for government insurance. we could go on and on, it doesn't mean we don't like rich people. i'm all for it. i'm not for giving them free stuff. why would we give them subsidized insurance? i will offer a second amendment. this might be easier to accept.

realize this could be accepted right now. this entire program could be reauthorized with these amendments tonight if the senator from louisiana will accept this amendment. this amendment would say that if your house is worth more than $2 million, and it's your second home, that it wouldn't be eligible for government insurance. that would be pretty easy. it still would have significant savings because there are quite a few homes out there and do you think they would find a way to buy insurance? sure they would. therefore i ask the senator to mod fight his request so that the paul amendment at the desk, the second paul amendment, be considered and agreed to, the bill as amended be considered and read a third time and passed and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: does the senator so modify his request? mr. kennedy: madam president,

reserving the right to respectfully respond to my colleague's request for a modification. let me just say i love cher. i mean, i just remember sonny and cher when they were both on tv. sonny was a congressman for a while. but i think cher is what cool looks like. i don't agree with much of her politics, but cher is equal in her coolness only by nick cage. i love nick cage. i just saw a movie that he did not long ago. i can't remember the name of it. but he was -- typical in his movies, he plays these deeply weird characters, you know. and he was a truffles hunter.

and he had a pig, a special pig that would hunt for truffles. and the bad guys heard his pig -- hurt his pig. well, nick hurt them. i think he ended up killing them, but before he killed them, he hurt them the entire time they were dying. it was a great movie. i love nicolas cage. and i appreciate rand reminding me of it. i might go home tonight and watch a nick cage movie. but let me get out of la la land and go back to number one. i know my friend didn't mean to give you this impression but november gives you flood insurance. let me say that again. nobody gives you flood insurance. you have to buy it. so this idea that the government is somehow giving cher and nick cage and president biden and i

don't know, who else did you mention? michael -- i don't know. whoever else he mentioned. they don't get free insurance from the government. they have to buy it. that's point one. number two, the price of flood insurance under risk rating 2.0, anybody who has bought flood insurance lately is going to see how high the prices have gone. there was a time when the program was subsidized, but it's not being subsidized any more. in fact, a lot of people have had to drop their flood insurance because they just can't afford it anymore. it's just way too expensive. i guess point three, madam president, that i would make, 99 and 999-10ths of the people who

buy flood insurance, we're not talking about phil collins here. we're not talking about cher. we're not talking about nick cage. we're talking about working men and working women. and this idea that we're going to cap the price of the home, i know places in america today where a $2 million home gets you virtually nothing. go check out california. go check out manhattan. the housing inflation has just been dramatic. if it hadn't had been, i might have considered what rand is proposing. but the truth is -- i would like the record to reflect this. what senator paul is proposing to do is that we gut a program

that doesn't give anything to any anybody. you have to buy the insurance that is not available for most people in the private sector. without which they can't buy a home because the lender won't lone them the money. if you let this expire, you're not only going to hurt working men and working women who are trying to buy a home, you're going to destroy the real estate market as well. finally, i'll say it again, i really hope we come to a time when we don't spend our time on the senate floor denigrating success in america. trying to say if you're rich, you're bad. you must have gotten rich because you stole the money or oppressed somebody. that's not an america i want to

live in. so for that reason, madam president, respectfully i object to the modification, even though i still do believe that cher and nick cage are what cool looks like. the presiding officer: objection to the modification is heard. is there objection to the original request? mr. paul: madam president. the presiding officer: the junior senator from kentucky. mr. paul: reserving the right to object. the argument is made that this is not a gift and this is not subsidized insurance. well, if it weren't subsidized insurance and it were a market price insurance, it wouldn't lose $16 billion a year. by definition, if you lose $16 billion a year, you're not charging enough in premiums. so you have subsidized premiums. this is a subsidized government insurance program that even with the subsidized premiums, it's woefully inadequate. it's accumulating tens of billions of dollars of debt.

it's currently $20 billion in the hole. we've got a problem here. i haven't really heard how we're going to fix this. and one obvious, easy way would be people who can't afford to should maybe pay the full price for their insurance and not a subsidized price. so i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the junior senator from delaware. a senator: madam president, it was i believe then president reagan who famously asked, are you better off than you were four years ago? mr. coons: i rise to take a moment here at the end of the 118th congress, at the end of the presidency of joe biden, to say you bet you're better off today than you were four years ago. i wanted to take just a few moments and reflect on the service, the career, the values and the consequence of joe biden's service on behalf of

delaware in this chamber for 36 years, as our vice president for eight, and as our president for the last four. i had the honor of having joe biden's desk here on the floor of the senate, and in my office in russell, i have what was his desk as a senator for 36 years and as a vice president for eight. as a son of both scranton, pennsylvania, and claymont, delaware, to me he was a role model and others and an ins inspiration to get involved in public service in the first place. if you think for a moment about where we were this time four years ago, there were three different profound challenges the united states was facing, all really because of the pandemic, a pandemic that had been badly mishandled and had spiraled out of control, was still killing 3,000 americans a day in december of 2024.

violent crime had skyrocketed. health care coverage was declining. jobs had been lost and the rates of millions and the united states was divided from some of its closest, oldest, and most trusted allies. across those different indicators just briefly the numbers tell a striking story. we have one of the lowest violent crime rates in 50 years today. the covid-19 pandemic is mostly a thing of the past. a public health concern that still needs monitoring but that is not at any risk of killing another million americans. health care coverage has improved dramatically. the number of uninsured americans is today at an all-time low. and while the former president left office with the worst jobs record since herbert hoover, the private sector under joe biden's leadership helped create 15 million jobs and all -- jobs, an all-time record. joe biden is someone who was a

committed public servant who put country above self. someone who has been one of the most consequential presidents in our history and the most consequential of my lifetime, who came to this body from a blue collar background focused on the middle class, on unions, on what we could do to strengthen our country from the middle out and the bottom up and took that vision to the presidency. he worked tirelessly to restore our leadership around the world and to reweave together the bonds between the united states and a then fractured coalition of alliances and partnerships around the world and to strengthen our economy as it recovered from the devastation of the pandemic. he never gave up on the promise of our democracy, our nation, and this institution in particular. and the record of the bipartisan legislation that got passed under his leadership i think is

striking and will stand the test of time. whether it was bringing back advanced manufacturing through the chips and science act, investing a generational investment in rebuilding infrastructure all over our country of all different kinds and levels, investing in protecting our veterans from the harm of burn pits and doing right by our veterans, making right on that sacred obligation, combatting gun violence, investing in community mental health, all of these were landmark, bipartisan pieces of legislation. he also struck out in a direction that made a lifetime of difference in reducing prescription drug prices and investing in a cleaner economy through the bipartisan -- excuse me -- through the inflation reduction act which was a moment when he abandoned bipartisanship in the interest of making a lasting difference for all

americans. if you look briefly at what he did beyond our shores, the crisis of russia's brutal broad spectrum invasion of ukraine cat lied not just the revitalization but the expansion of nato, moved us from a point where only four of our nato allies had met their spending targets to today -- he led a global coalition in defense of ukraine, stood strong for our ally israel after the heinous attacks of october 7 and ongoing attacks from iran, and in the indo-pacific he's done more to create a new security situation than even i could have imagined. the quad in the indo-pacific, the reconciliation of korea and japan, and the innovative aukus partnership that will deliver nuclear propulsion technology to the australian submarine fleet and deliver new deterrence. one of my favorite things he's done was celebrated in his most recent trip to angola, the

investment in infrastructure in the global south in a way that has hire transparency -- higher transparency, better labor standard, better environmental standard, more sustainable than our competitors the chinese and their investment throughout the world. i've had a chance to visit both the philippines and angola to see our president's lasting work in investing in infrastructure across all of these, strengthening our alliances, investing in our values and our partnerships, finding ways to stand up to aggression. it is my hope that we will find in this chamber bipartisan support to continue. what i will miss about joe biden's leadership is that he is someone who lived a quintessentially american story. he never forgot the middle class roots that gave him the strength to live what was a hard life, knocked down by grief. devastating grief twice in his life. he got back up. someone who believed deeply in the dignity of work, the son of

a hardworking car salesman, someone who understood the importance of not just a paycheck but having a purpose and the importance of respecting work and its role in creating and strengthening the middle class. last, president biden has been someone who knew and believed in this institution. i worked with then leaders mcconnell and reid, senator leahy and senator grassley when joe biden was leaving his last moment as president of the senate, as vice president to pull together a recollections of our vice president day. and dozens of senators came to this floor and told their favorite joe biden stories. there are stories full of compassion, full of humor, dedication, and full of service. that is the man i hope we will remember and recognize as he comes to the conclusion of his service as president, close to a month from today. that is the man who i will continue to honor and to respect

and i continue in my service on behalf of our shared state of delaware going forward. thank you, madam president. with that i yield the floor.

. mr. lankford: madam president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: thank you. several years ago it was a december like this, there were big bills that were coming through the house and the senate, one of them being the national defense authorization, which passes every single year for the last six decades. stuck in that multi, multi, multi-page bill was a little piece on beneficial ownership. now or, most everybody just didn't notice what it would be, but in the past couple of years,

the biden administration has released the rules for beneficial ownership and what will be required to be able to deal with, quote-unquote, opportunities for fraud. what it has become is a way to be able to get from every single small business in america tesh and i do need to emphasize, these are all small business; in fact, the smallest of the small businesses, every llc, every business owner in america a list of them -- of this,ary name, their date of birth and an i.d. number. that's simple. but then also a listing of all the senior officers of the company, someone who has authority over the appointment or removal of a senior officer, and this little jewel -- someone who substantially influences important decisions in your company. every business owner in america is required by january 1 in just a couple of weeks to turn in that document for every single

business that they own. now, for many folks in real estate or in construction or in many other businesses, they actually start a company and raise it up for that company, and so they may not own one company or have one llc. they may have 20 or 30. and they've got to go through the paperwork for every single one of those and to be able to turn it in, including answering the question, who influences your important decisions on your company? no one even knows what that means. well, you may say, well, it's no big deal if they don't turn it in. oh, oh, no it is. because under the rule that's been put out, if they don't turn this form in, it is a $10,000 fine for each company that they don't turn in, or two years in jail if they don't submit it. let that soak in. every small business owner in america has to turn in who

influences their decisions or they could go to jail for two years. now, listen, all of us around this room would say, that's too much. why is the federal government asking that of every pet owner, of every hair 1407 -- hair shortchanges -- of every hair shop t it's a good question because a federal judge just a couple of weeks ago stepped in and did a preliminary injunction, just temporarily stepped in -- this, by the way, washings a federal judge appointed by president obama. they stepped in and put a halt on this rule. and they said, this rule is, their term, quasi-orwellian. they put a pause on it, but the problem is, the pause is

completely dependent on the judge at this point. they could unpause it at this moment. so the simple thing i've asked for throughout this entire year is, let's get rid of this rule. this rule should not be there at all. congress has no right to go to every business owner and hand them a stack of forms and say, fill these out and tell us who helps us make decisions in your company. what in the world? so we have no right to be able to do that. so i've asked all year long, we need to get riffed it entirely. i've not been -- get rid of it entirely. i've not been successful. so we've asked a simple thing -- let's take it out for one year. let's delay it, let's get more time to be able to talk about this. this is a big issue that congress is laying down on thechlt them. now, i have to tell you i've not been successful getting that either. but you know who has been? the house of representatives. the house of representatives passed a one-year delay on this rule -- wait for it -- 420-1.

420-1, the house said, yeah, this is a massive overreach. let's pause this for a year at least, until we figure out what this actually means. what does this mean for small business owners across the country? they could, in the very earliest time of next year under a new administration, any single small business in the country could face a $10,000 fine or two years in prison if they haven't turned this in. but they've all turned it in already, right? it was due january 1. actually, fincen has given us the latest numbers of who has turned it in. let me just give you a few states, as an example. and the percentage. in new york state, 80% of the small businesses haven't turned this form in yet. 80%. in my state, in oklahoma, 77% of

the small businesses have not turned this form in. in rhode island, 72% of the small businesses have not turn this form in. in west virginia, 80% of the businesses have not turned this form in. in wisconsin, 74% of the businesses have not turn this form in. that means they could all face -- all those businesses could all face a $10,000 fine or two years in jail because they haven't submitted is a form most of them know exist. listen, delaying for a year is not a radical proposal. 420-1 in the house is a pretty good vote, especially considering the votes of the house in the past week. that's broad bipartisan agreement.

all i'm asking is, let's pause this for a year. let's agree with the house and not have 75% to 80% of american small businesses suddenly be under the heavy hand of a potential fine for jail time because they don't even know this exists. but it does. it's february law. -- it's federal law. so that's my simple request that i'm bringing on this very last moment to be able to deal with. so as if in legislative session, and notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on banking, house, and urban affairs be discharged from further consideration of h h.r. 5119 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration; i further ask that the bill be considered read a third time, be passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there

objection? a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the junior senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: madam president, reserving the right too object, let me start by pointing out that this is a national security bill. and the reason it's a national security bill is because, to paraphrase a famous author, the united states is engaged in a clash of civilizations. and i describe that clash of civilizations as between rule of law countries like the united states and countries that are run by kleptocrates and oligarchs and criminals or subject to control by traffickers and international criminal organizations. now, if you are an oligarch or a kleptocrat or on international criminal, the thing you want more than anything else is to be able to hide what you stole, and you don't want to hide what you stole in your own corrupt and crooked country; you want to hide what you stole behind rule

of law. and the result is that the united states and other countries on the rule of law side of this clash of civilizations are giving aid and comfort to our enemies by helping them hide their crooked assets. the concern for the united states was made pretty clear by treasury secretary yellen, who admitted there is a good argument that the best place to hide and launder ill-gotten gains is actually the united states. so we're trying to clean that mess up. and it's not just this administration. under president trump, secretary mnuchin said, treasury's ability to combat tax evasion and to detect, detext and disrupt --

dedetect, deter, and disrupt money laundering and terrorist financing would be greatly enhanced through reporting of beneficial ownership information. the suggestion that this magically appeared in some bill? no, it was worked through 00 two committees in the senate. it's been bipartisan from its earliest days, both in the judiciary committee and in the banking committee. it has been through enormous effort and, in fact, the last trump administration, working with us on this bill in 2019, released a statement of administration policy condemning this bipartisan measure -- and i quote them here -- that will help prevent maligned actors from leveraging anonymity to exploit these entities for criminal gain.

are there examples of what's been going on? well, terrorist groups like hezbollah, putin's oligarch cronies, north korean foreign operatives, fentanyl traffickers -- all need shell companies to hide what they have stolen. vi victor bough, use and anonymous network of companies. anonymous llc's impeded new york city's ability to trace the terror finance scheme that funded the 9/11 attacks. again, shell corporations that we didn't know who was really behind. an anonymous new york company served as a front for the iranian government in violation of u.s. sanctions with millions of dollars in rent illegally funneled to iran.

a doj indictment last year said that cartel operatives designed a network of shell companies in wyoming to launder illegal millions for the sinaloa cartel. narco traffickers in new jersey were charged with using an american shell company to buy fentanyl-related supplies from china many. so this is a real problem, which is why the trump administration statement of administration policy was supportive. now, we went through a lot of effort to get here. the first group that stood up against it was the u.s. chamber of commerce, and when it was exposed what had they were arguing for, they actually ended up backing off and going to neutral on the bill because their bank members and their antimoney laundering members and other members of the chamber said, what are we doing here? and as soon as what that entity disappeared, up came the american bar association doing

the same thing and their banking section and their antilaundering section and their former prosecutors and their national security folks said, what are you doing? and so the american bar association backed off. the third in this game of political special interest whac-a-mole was nfib, which came in to present the same stale arguments to senator graham, senator grassley and myself that were so stale and so flagrant that -- well, i'm not going to i ask the reading of the names be dispensed with -- let's just say the nfib had a very bad day facing down this bipartisan group. so a lot of work has gone into this. the stakes are very hiechlt this actually is a national security bill, and against that risk of being the loser in the clash of civilizations -- because we're giving aid and comfort to our enemies by allowing them to use american shell corporations to hide what they get selling

fentanyl to our citizens, here's what we ask -- when you set up a corporation, you tell us i do not your name -- you tell us your name. that's not very complicated. you can do that pretty quickly. you tell us yew address. -- you tell us your address. that doesn't take more that have a couple seconds to remember. yeah, write that down. your date of birth. that's pretty simple, too. and then either a passport or driver's license number. it is literally that simple. where it gets complicated is where you have complex networks of joined shell companies in a complex corporate structure. but if that's what you've got, the very same lawyers who put that complex structure together can easily add this information. so, in my view, delaying the corporate transparency would empower criminals who are

operating through american shell companies, who outcompete and defraud honest small business owners while emboldening and facilitating terrorist groups, foreign adversaries like russia, china, around iran, fentanyl trafficking, and a whole array of grotesquely bad actors. so i object. with great regard for my friend senator lankford, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. lankford: madam president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: my friend and i from rhode island, we have a lot of great conversations. i think we both agree on the problem here. there's clearly a problem, that money could be laundered and hidden in american companies and shell companies. no question. what we disagree on is the answer to that problem. in this setting, with this set of forms, the assumption is that those doing international money laundering would put down their

accurate information and would identify themselves as international terrorists and money launderers. there this particular setting, every small business owner that owns a restaurant or a pet store or a bookstore or a plumber or a roofing company, 30 million, in fact, small businesses in america, all have to prove their innocence. and the assumption is that a russian oligarch that's trying to hide money will tell the truth when he fills his form out, and i find that hard to bel believe. but in the meantime, 30 million small businesses have to go through a form, and within w weeks, probably 23 million of those will be in violation of the law, and they will face penalties of $10,000 or two years in jail, and most of those small business owners that run that restaurant down the street don't even know this rule

exists. it's the kind of stuff that drives americans crazy, that they woke up one day and found out they may go to jail tomorrow because they didn't fill out a form that someone wanted. that's what we're trying to pause. the problem is real. i don't think is the right solution for it and the way it's being implemented. let's see if we can solve the problem without actually causing literally tens of millions of small business owners to be under the sort of damocles that they could be rounded up and go to jail at any moment because they didn't get a form filled out. that's what we're trying to solve in the days ahead. i wish we could at least put a pause on this and think it through more before those small business owners find out. with that, i yield.

the presiding officer: the junior senator from oklahoma is recognized. mr. mullin: thank you. for eight years, beginning with my time in the house, i have worked on the miami-illinois land claim settlement act, which is now settlement bill 2796. i want to thank chief lankford from the miami tribe, his assistance in moving this bill forward. he helped lay out a solid factual background for indian affairs committee, which is why it uniquely came out of the

committee. this is a unique piece of legislation. the miami tribe is not seeking a settlement for their treaty claim, or an appropriations from congress. this is zero cost to congress. the miami tribe, or miama tribe, is not seeking a settlement. the tribe is simply asking congress to do what only congress can -- extinguish the tribe's treaty title claim to the land in illinois. first, this bill will remove a cloud on the title for non-indian landowners in the eastern-central illinois by benefiting the tribe and nontribal members alike. second, the bill will allow the tribe the opportunity to plead their case before the u.s. court of claims. this is a straightforward bill, cosponsored by both my colleagues from illinois, senator durbin and senator duckworth. the miama tribe waited long enough to get this done, and

it's time to act. as if this legislation session and notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to immediate consideration of the calendar number 489, s. 2796, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. promise is there objection? mr. lee: madam president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from utah. mr. lee: madam president, reserving the right to object. i have great respect and admiration for my friend and distinguished colleague, the senator from oklahoma. when i've listened to the arguments being presented i'm reminded of a couple things. number one, these claims arise out of and relate to a treaty, a treaty going back to 1805. those claims have had the

opportunity, more recently, to have been litigated in front of the previously existing indian claims commission. congress recognizing the need at the time to open up what might have been a confusing set of legal circumstances or inadequate availability for relief opened up a five-year window for claims related to this treaty that was entered into with the miama tribe in 1805. they opened that up for a period between 1946 and 1951. jurisdiction over what was previously the indian claims commission has since been transferred over to the united states court of federal claims. interestingly, the court of federal claims still maintains jurisdiction over such things,

but lacks the ability to enter orders. statute of limitations have long since passed. there was this five-year window in which they could bring claims like this. during that time period, 1946 and 1951, the myaamia tribe did pursue and litigate on a number of claims related to that treaty. enough for them to have received a realm at this, a realm -- a remedy, of about $11 million at the time. i'm told in $2,024, that's about $200 million. there are reasons why we have statutes of limitations. those reasons have to do with the fact that at some point, a stone rolling down the mountain has to come to rest. when you're dealing with litigation, especially litigation on claims dating back a couple hundred years, it's especially important to have finality.

now, my friend and colleague refers to the need to reopen this window today to remove what he describes as a cloud to the chain of title. the problem with that argument, madam president, is that it overlooks the fact that the united states is an indispensable party for any and all such claims as might arise. so as to underlie the putative cloud to any chain of title on these lands. as an indispensable party, the united states must be added or the court can't handle anything like that. the court, under existing law, can't address them in the absence of the indispensable party. because the united states is and has been deemed an indispensable party, pursuant to rule 19 of the federal rules of civil procedure, no such claim exists, therefore, in i and all claims that could -- any and all claims that could create the asserted

cloud to the chain of title are in fact illusory, entirely illusory. as the united states department of justice articulated well when delivering testimony in july of 2019, on behalf of the u.s. department of justice environment and natural resources division of doj, before the subcommittee on indigenous peoples of the united states house of representatives committee on natural resources, these claims are especially important here. in other words, the existence of a statute of limitations are especially important here. here's what they said, quote, statute of limitation, statutes of limitation serve valuable purposes. they are designed, quoting supreme court precedent here, to promote justice by preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until the evidence has

been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared. those concerns are particularly acute as here, where the united states would be required to litigate claims based on events that occurred more than 150 years ago. such litigation can be complex and expensive, and it typically requires hiring expert historians and other professionals. there is no valid basis to expend federal resources to undertake this effort here. i concur with that assessment and would add that this would add a layer of complexity, create a massive slippery slope problem, and open up settled expectations and understandings regarding federal landownership that have been settled long ago, and as to which statutes of limitations have now run. on that basis, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard.

mr. mullin: madam chair, i appreciate my colleague from utah and his fine arguments. obviously, you can tell he's a great attorney. what froth rates me is that i'm literally down the hall. my -- what frustrates me is that i'm literally down the hall. you could have called me. you could have simply talked to me. you could have even called me back today when i called you on the phone and we could discuss this. at any given time we could have had this discussion not here on the floor, but take time to walk through this. i do understand your concerns, but your argued is that since the statute is looked at, we should not deal with any indian issues which i lived in, and always have lived in indian country, my i know my colleague from utah has not, and may not always understand the complexity to which we live in consistently. but under your argue, that the court should never look at anything inside the treaty, it's

done and over with, why even look at it, yet the court always looks into it, and that's why we have the court. we also have a separation of power. which we're the legislative branch, and you're quoting the judicial branch. in this case, the only people that can solve this issue is congress. the court can't. this is unique. only congress can do this. no one else. and there is a dispute, because my colleague is from utah, he's not from illinois, amendment he doesn't understand -- and he doesn't understand the title issues there is a dispute on, which is why congress looked at this over and over again. that's why we had hearings in the house and in the senate. inside the committee that has jurisdiction over this, and both committees have spoken, said yes, this is something that needs to move forward that congress does need to act on. i would have loved to have this debate not in public, but in private and we could have discussed this, but you didn't give me that opportunity, so now

we're here. so if congress isn't going to solve this issue, that means we just throw our hands up and leave the tribes in limbo? i think we've walked away from the tribes enough. and i take it personal. because when the tribes do need assistance, where else are they supposed to go? they can't go back and litigate this in the courts, until congress acts. which is why this legislation is in fronts of us. then the congress, once we act, it can be referred to the court, and then the court can decide if the statute of limitation has already ran outs of it or not. or do they have the right to look at it. recently there is called the mcgirt decision that went back and completely changed massachusetts going on in indian -- changed what's going on in indian country in oklahoma, and unsettled something we thought was settled a long time ago. especially considering the ruling said they believe the