Bill Cassidy

Mr. President, I rise today to speak to the nomination of Todd Blanche to be Attorney General.

Over the last several days, I have heard from lots of people sharing their views on this nomination, and most of the time it is clear Mr. Blanche has become a referendum on how people feel about President Trump. If you don't like the President, you don't like Mr. Blanche, and if you do like the President, you do.

I have not approached it this way. This process should be about Mr. Blanche and how he will go forward in a difficult job and how the American people can be best served. I have a history with Mr. Trump, but that history does not matter one bit.

On the one hand, Mr. Blanche does not need to be Senate-confirmed. He can continue to serve at the pleasure of the President as Deputy Attorney General or even Acting Attorney General if this vote is pulled. On the other hand, I am told that Senate confirmation is important in interactions with the President, with others in the Cabinet, and is important to DOJ employees, in general. Being Senate- confirmed gives him greater leverage to push for things that should be pushed for.

This does not demean the Senate's role. Important issues have been discussed through this process, and Mr. Blanche has made commitments.

Now on to the specific nomination. Since Mr. Blanche passed out of Judiciary Committee on August 4, I have spoken to Mr. Blanche five or six times. We have texted many more. I just got off the phone with him. I have spoken multiple times to Senators Murkowski, Cornyn, and Tillis. Senator Whitehouse shared his concerns. Additionally, I spoke with current and past administration officials, including a long conversation with former Attorney General Bill Barr. Late last night, I spoke to two U.S. attorneys from Louisiana: David Courcelle and Kurt Wall. Of course, there has been a lot to read and a lot to consider, and I slept on it overnight.

Let's start with the concerns. Mr. Blanche showed poor judgment in approving the anti-weaponization slush fund and exempting the President from IRS audits. No American should be unfairly targeted by the law, but no American should be above the law. Mr. Blanche said these were mistakes, and he has made efforts to kill the slush fund.

I am particularly concerned about episodes of apparent lawfare--DOJ bringing suits against political enemies. Presidents of both parties have been guilty of this. It must stop. It should stop now. A never- ending cycle of prosecuting political enemies undermines the rule of law, degrades the public's trust in our institutions, and makes our politics more extreme when we need to unite to solve the big problems of our time. I am not entirely satisfied where this is, and I have no doubts that I will have concern in the future. I will note that I have learned that some of the cases that are publicly reported to be under investigation by the Department of Justice have been dismissed or are no longer being pursued.

I am realistic that President Trump can be unrelenting on this, but this would be true no matter who the Attorney General is, and this is the rationale for having a Senate-confirmed Attorney General with more leverage to push back.

I will also note that Mr. Blanche is criticized for things over which he has no control. He points out that he has been criticized for Presidential pardons given to January 6 rioters, some of whom assaulted police officers. Many of us were here then. But this is a Presidential prerogative, and he is not the President.

He also points out that he can advise the President, but the President is not obligated to take his advice. That is the same thing that former Attorney General Barr said in a separate conversation. I can absolutely believe that President Trump, at times, would not take advice.

But even critics admit that Mr. Blanche knows the law and is a hands- on administrator. He has instructed U.S. attorneys to focus on violent crime, human and drug trafficking, and fraud in programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Mr. Courcelle, the U.S. attorney in New Orleans, said that when he needed extra resources, Acting Attorney General Blanche provided them to finish a big drug case.

Both Mr. Courcelle and Mr. Wall said the DOJ has accountability measures for each prosecutor in their office and that there are weekly calls between their offices and DOJ to review the performance of each prosecutor; that morale is high not despite the accountability measures but because of the accountability measures; and more cases were being processed and convictions being obtained. David Courcelle spoke of almost $1 billion in fraud being recovered for the U.S. taxpayer from healthcare fraud.

Both men said that having a permanent, Senate-confirmed Attorney General was important. I cannot overstate Mr. Walls' and Mr. Courcelle's support for Mr. Blanche.

When former Attorney General Bill Barr endorsed Mr. Blanche, he said Mr. Blanche ``will run the department as effectively as anyone could under President Trump.'' Some called that faint praise. I don't think that it is; I think it is a reality.

Barr specifically addressed the allegation that Mr. Blanche would be a yes-man for the President. He said that any attorney, to represent the client well, has to have tough conversations and confront a client with difficult truths; that because of his previous attorney-client relationship with President Trump, Mr. Blanche would be precisely the person to push back on President Trump but that ultimately--and here Barr echoed what I have heard from Blanche--decisions are made by the President.

Mr. Blanche is not perfect, and he will tell you this. But the choice is not between perfection and Mr. Blanche; it is between Mr. Blanche and another Acting Attorney General who may not run the Department effectively under President Trump and who, indeed, may not be as good as Mr. Blanche. This puts at risk the progress made fighting violent crime, human and drug trafficking, and fraud, and this does not serve the American people well.

This is not a referendum on President Trump; it is a decision regarding Mr. Blanche in very specific circumstances. All considered, I will vote for Mr. Blanche. I will be criticized for this vote--what is new?--but the people of Louisiana can be assured that I worked hard to understand the issue and to make the right decision.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I have been told that I am a lousy politician but a good Senator. I consider that a compliment. What would happen if everyone in the Senate stopped being a good politician for a moment and strove to be a good Senator when it comes to addressing the issue associated with Social Security?

Over 70 million Americans depend upon Social Security, and ultimately, all Americans will when they reach the age of retirement. Everyone in the Senate and most of the people in the country know that the Social Security System is going insolvent. When that occurs, by law, there will be a cut, if we wait for 6 years, of 22 to 28 percent-- a 22- to 28-percent cut in benefits for everyone on Social Security and everyone who will be.

Members of Congress say they care about Social Security. They say they care about the seniors, they care about preserving promised benefits for current retirees and future generations.

We have had a bill before us called the PROMISE Act by Senator Dick Durbin, my Democratic Senator colleague from Illinois. That would have been a bill that would have set up a Commission, if you will, of the Social Security Advisory Board to put forward a proposal. But the House is out of session. That could not pass. So now I put up a Senate resolution. And we take out the involvement of the Social Security actuaries, and we ask that a group of Senators and Representatives, Republicans and Democrats, come together over the next 2 months in a process to produce a potential idea.

This, what I am about to propose, is not about a particular solution. This, what I am about to propose, is about a process by which a solution can be considered, given to the Senate Finance Committee and House Ways and Means for regular-order consideration, and then with a time agreement so that there will be, after that consideration by the Senate Finance Committee in which any member can replace the bill that is brought to them with an amendment in the nature of a substitute-- that ``any member'' could be Bernie Moreno; it could be Elizabeth Warren; it could be Ron Wyden; it could be Bernie Sanders; it could be Bill Cassidy--putting up their own proposal if they don't like what this bipartisan, bicameral group of elected officials comes up with.

Now, this is merely a process. It does not attempt to point in any direction toward a solution. All it asks is that we be good Senators-- putting politics aside and recognizing that if we don't do something sooner than later to fix the problem with Social Security, future Social Security beneficiaries can get as much as a 28.5-percent cut in benefits under current law.

So I am putting it to a test. Will the Senate take up the challenge? Will we put politics aside and step forward on a bipartisan, bicameral basis to actually work for the American people in a way which can ensure that Social Security exists?

So I ask unanimous consent on a path forward that all colleagues should be able to support. It merely, once more, creates a process to do what the American people sent us here to do: Debate solutions, consider proposals, and vote. It does not predetermine the outcome. It just says that Congress must consider a solution--anyone's solution, Democrat or Republican, left and right. It just asks us to do our job to consider the solution and to then go through regular order on the Senate Finance Committee, to be considered by all.

So will we be good Senators, or will we be good politicians? Will we deny progress for the sake of political success? Let's find out.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent to set up a process--only a process--for Congress to consider solutions. So my script is: As if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 832, which is at the desk. I further ask that the resolution be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, it grieves my soul that once again politics and political rhetoric trumps that which we need to do for the country. Let me address the nature of the objection.

Actually, this is a Senate resolution, but it invites the House to participate; and the Constitution requires that anything raising taxes originates in Ways and Means in the House. And so, therefore, they would have to participate. That is the protection of our Constitution.

It is a bipartisan--by the way, this is a bipartisan proposal to set up this process. There is nothing partisan about it. Dick Durbin set up the PROMISE Act.

The House, unfortunately, left July 23 so we could not pass it. This is the best we could do with the House out of session in a bipartisan- initiated process.

Dick Durbin who is a senior Member of the Democratic caucus is the one who is my collaborator.

There is nothing in here to cut benefits. That is absurd. It sets up a process by which a solution can be considered. It does not dictate an outcome. And to suggest that what this does today is dictate an outcome is not telling the truth to the American people.

There is no fast track here. There is 2 months of open dialogue with the American people, and then it goes to the Senate Finance Committee and to Ways and Means for it to then be considered in regular order.

This is basically a time agreement, and time agreements are what we do all the time around here.

I agree with updating Social Security, but we are not going to get there if we say every time one side offers it: Oh, we can't do it because the other side is angling for advantage. Let's be good Senators, not be good politicians.

Mr. President, one more time. The resolution invites the House to participate. The resolution says: Please Speaker, please, minority leader, appoint people to participate.

We recognize that Ways and Means have to originate this bill. I wish we could have passed the PROMISE Act, but there were objections to passing the PROMISE Act which would have had to have been passed by the House as well.

So in this, working as well as we can, knowing that Social Security is getting worse and worse by the day, we invite them to participate with the understanding that they could put in whatever they want.

The argument of my colleague from Oregon is that we somehow have a solution baked in. That is not true. This is only a process bill. And if the House wants to advance a bill which taxes billionaires, by golly, they can do it. They can do it under this bill.

Right now, they can't, because there is no mechanism for that bill to advance. We are creating a mechanism by which it can advance. And so, if you want to tax the billionaires, we create the opportunity. If you want to do nothing, you vote against this bill.

I have got limited time left, and I don't feel like sitting back and being a good politician when I should be a good Senator, working to fix Social Security because every day it gets worse and every day the law- required cut-in benefits to beneficiaries increases.

It doesn't get better by waiting 2 years; it gets worse. And opposing this resolution is like basically turning a blind eye to that deterioration.

I yield the floor.