Bill Cassidy

Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 365, S. 3315.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be withdrawn; that the Cassidy substitute amendment No. 5819 be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I will briefly speak to this. Improving cyber security resilience is essential to safeguard patients and ensure that providers can deliver care without disruptions.

My bipartisan bill, the Health Care Cybersecurity and Resiliency Act, would ensure health institutions can safeguard Americans' health data against increasing attacks. At a time when cyber attacks not only put patients' sensitive health data at risk but can delay lifesaving care, we need to do more to provide support.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Patients Deserve Price Tags Act.

Free markets empower people to live freely. When there is information held by a monopoly which cannot--and I, the consumer, can't figure out what that information is, it takes away my freedom of choice; it takes away my economic freedom because I am going to end up paying a price perhaps far higher than what I should.

Right now, that is happening. People providing healthcare don't have to provide the pricetag to the employer paying for the insurance or the employee who may be accessing that care in their deductible or outside the policy.

It is impacting people. Mortgage and health insurance--the price of being insured can be $29,000 a year for a family of four--$29,000 a year if you include the deductible with the cost of the premium, including the employer's share. So what we are trying to do is do something about that by giving the patient the power, giving her economic freedom by saying: This is how much it costs at this place, and this is how much it costs at that place.

Let's put a point on it. A pediatrician orders an x ray for a child, a chest x ray. If you go down the hall, it may cost $500, and if you go across the street, it may cost $75. Right now, it is incredibly difficult for that mother to know. What we imagine is that with this information being made available, it would be made available not just to those who would pull the information together, but they, in turn, would make it available for the mom with the baby, and she could say: Oh, chest x ray for my child--$500 here and $75 across the street. I am going across the street.

I can promise you, when you do that, the place charging $500 is going to begin lowering the rate.

This is about doing something positive for patients. Senators Marshall and Hickenlooper and the HELP Committee majority and minority staff put together the Patients Deserve Price Tags Act, and, again, it gives the patient power. As Roger pointed out, it passed 21 to 1 out of the HELP Committee--bipartisan support to give patients power.

I will give you one more example. Ten years ago, a friend of mine told me--this was 10 years ago--that if he converted atrial fibrillation in his office, it cost $130. If you went to the hospital and had the same procedure done, it was $13,000. Now, shouldn't the patient know? Because even if she is only paying a 20-percent copay, 20 percent of $130 is a lot better than 20 percent of $13,000. This could be the difference between a family able to pay their other bills.

Ultimately, this will lower premiums because obviously if the cost of healthcare goes down, the cost of premiums should go down.

It gives employers access to deidentified health claims data so that if, by the way, the insurance--if the doctor is charging $30,000 but is only paid $3,000 but the insurer bills the business $10,000, the business should know that. They paid a lot more than what the doctor charged. The business owner should know that, and right now, the business owner cannot know that.

The Patients Deserve Price Tags Act is the first step to delivering what Americans asked for: healthcare they can afford, control in their hands, economic freedom.

If Congress is serious about decreasing healthcare costs, we should pass this by unanimous consent today and send it to the President's desk.

I yield the floor.

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.