Floor Statements

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.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, as the Presiding Officer knows, one of the privileges of being a Senator is the opportunity to work alongside dedicated, talented staff. They take the Senator's ideas and concepts and turn them into real legislation that improves the lives of our constituents and improves our

country. Without them, we are unable to do our job.

As I near the end of my career in Congress, I reflect on the staff who have come and gone and the work we have done that will have a lasting impact on the Nation.

Today, I honor an invaluable member of my team, my HELP Committee deputy staff director, Danielle Janowski. She is leaving Capitol Hill after nearly 17 years of service.

Danielle joined my HELP Committee leadership team in 2023 when I became the ranking member. She had previously worked in the House and for Senators Ernst and Thune. As deputy staff director, she kept the trains moving. She made sure that staff were all rowing in the same direction and that every committee product was done on time and was of the highest quality.

Danielle is an institutionalist at heart, and it was through that lens that she always fought for the HELP Committee to be strategic, thorough, and professional. She cares about this institution and what it represents. She views it as her duty to mentor other young staffers to carry forward the traditions and collaboration that the Senate deserves.

It is because of her leadership that the HELP Committee has been successful in getting bills signed into law that lower the cost of healthcare, strengthen our education system, empower workers, and enhance our retirement system.

Importantly, Danielle has been a leader in the fight for life. She spearheaded my work to protect unborn babies and mothers, an issue so important to me and to the people of Louisiana. Her passion for this cause and her deep connection with the pro-life community made her indispensable and an effective champion. She was instrumental in leading the first pro-life hearing this Congress, my investigation into abortion pill manufacturers harming mothers, and our efforts to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood in the Working Families Tax Cuts. None of this would have been possible without her passion, strategic guidance, and unrelenting determination. Babies' lives have been saved, and families are better off because of the work that she led. And what can be more important than that?

What Danielle will be most remembered for on our HELP team is her exceptional leadership and friendship. She is beloved by everyone who worked with her--a trusted and calming presence during transitions and chaotic times. When there was conflict or when staff simply needed someone to talk to, Danielle was there. She is an advocate, a mentor, a sounding board, and a friend to everyone.

Her departure is not only a loss for the office but for the entire Capitol Hill community. But our loss is someone else's gain. I am proud she will continue her public service at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, leading policy to improve families' health and drive down the cost of care. She will continue to make a positive difference and be an invaluable partner to those who remain in Congress. I look forward to working with her in this new capacity.

It has been a pleasure to watch Danielle grow as a leader and as a person. I thank her for her service to my office, to the Senate, and to the Nation.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, as we move into the August recess, I would like to remind my colleagues that the

bipartisan work the Senate does each day on behalf of the American people is possible in no small part because of our staff. Staff are always the first in line advocating for constituents and making American lives better, dedicating themselves to public service. As I wrap up my time in this Chamber and as the chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, I would like to thank my staff director Matthew Gallivan, my deputy staff director Danielle Janowski, and all of the staff that have served under their leadership: Margie Almanza, Ben Arquit, Will Arthur, Caroline Benson, Elizabeth Bielic, Bryce Billiot, Ty Bofferding, Garrett Buttrey, Daniel Chasen, Matthew Chingos, Sophie Conners, Claire Dunn, Cameron Durham, Jake Easter, Alaura Ervin, Keith Fernandez, Kyle Fortson, Patrick Fox, Romney Gripado, Kathryn Handler, Jackson Hern, Megan Kinner, Sinclair Kouns, Jeffrey Last, Stephen Lewernez, Alycia Maloney, Chad Miller, Anna Rose Moore, Clare Paoletta, Daniel Parker, Matthew Penner, Gigi Powers, TJ Prame, Joe Ramallo, Kristen Shatynski, Chung Shek, Michael Sinacore, Ryan Sweeney, Joanne Thomas, Matthew Thomas, Brianna Tibbetts, Dominic Travis, Todd Tuten, Luce Tysor, Jack Uhl, Micah Wortham, and Frank Zhang.

Mr. President, I have been coming to this floor talking about Social Security. No offense, but you look like, with that gray hair of yours, you might be on Social Security. I am thinking that might be the case.

But a lot of people who are watching right now are on Social Security. Why? Like 75 million Americans are, and this should be important to Congress because in 6 years, Social Security goes insolvent.

And when that happens, those folks watching right now who are on Social or anybody who is watching who is going to be on Social--which I hope includes everybody in this room, including the young people who are our pages--they will get a 22- to 28.5-percent cut in their benefits.

Let me say that again. In 6 years, when the Social Security trust fund goes insolvent, by law, there will be a 22- to 28.5-percent cut in the benefits that people on Social Security receive--from now until eternity.

And folks say: No, no, no, we will just raise taxes. We will just pay for it. We won't cut benefits. We will just raise taxes.

If we do that, according to the actuaries, we have to raise payroll taxes 40 percent. So think about that family who is struggling to make ends meet. They notice that they are paying a payroll tax, and now that goes up 40 percent.

Over the course of the year, that can be thousands of dollars that they don't have in their pocket to pay for their groceries, their gasoline, the time to be together on a special night, hopefully, putting some away for savings. That won't be there because, instead of cutting benefits, we are going to raise taxes.

And then a third group says: No, no, we are just going to borrow the money.

The Congressional Budget Office has looked at it. If we just try and borrow our way out of here, they say the amount of debt accumulated is so large, their models cannot calculate the destabilizing effect upon the U.S. economy.

What does that mean? Interest rates sky-high, can't afford a car, can't afford to buy a house. You can't afford to buy a house, so no one is employed building houses. No one is employed building houses, so no one is making shingles. No one is cutting wood, so no one is shipping lumber from here to there. That has ramifications for each of us. We need a better solution.

But the problem is that we have lacked a sense of urgency of fixing Social Security now. I say we need to have that urgency. It is almost like we are telling our seniors: We built a bridge for Social Security, but, by the way, it is about to lose a step. And on that last step, ``woo, boom.'' And Congress sits there and says: We will get to it someday.

It is time for Congress to do its job. It is time for Congress to get serious about something affecting not just the folks in this, who look as if they are elderly, but folks of all ages who will be affected because one day we will all, hopefully, be able to access Social Security.

Now, the good news is, today we had a Senate Finance Committee hearing on the PROMISE Act. Dick Durbin--a Democratic Senator, the whip for the Democrats and their leadership, been here for a long time--he has got a bill. Bill Cassidy is the cosponsor, a conservative Republican. We have got a bill called the PROMISE Act that doesn't say how Social Security is going to be fixed; it sets up a process by which we would consider how to fix Social Security--a process that, ideally, would give a product for the Senate and the House to consider sometime later in the year. Instead of saying we will get to it someday, we get to it this Congress.

By the way, this process is transparent, with input from anybody who wishes to have an input. And we are not saying what the solution is going to be. We are saying: Come up with a solution. But, by the way, if the Senate doesn't like it or if the Senate Finance Committee doesn't like it, they can replace it or, if an individual Member-- Bernie Sanders has a bill. If Bernie doesn't like the product, he can offer

his bill as a substitute. Same with Sheldon Whitehouse, Ron Wyden, Elizabeth Warren, any of us could put up a bill as a substitute.

And so we are not prescribing a solution. We are just trying to generate a process by which the Senate will consider how to rescue Social Security.

Now, what was good about the hearing, AARP was there. And AARP, represented by Nancy LeaMond, came out against the PROMISE Act.

I am thinking to myself, Wait a second. All we are doing is setting up a process. We are not saying it has to look like this, the solution. We are setting up a process whereby Congress does its job, and we are forced to come up with something that would rescue Social Security for AARP's members as well as all other Americans.

And so this is kind of the questions I had with Ms. LeaMond. And at the end of it, she said that they could support what I am about to propose.

I said: Ms. LeaMond, do your 38 million members, do they want a benefit cut that would--I am paraphrasing, condensing--would your 38 million members want a Social Security System which is fully funded and is not threatened with a 22- to 28-percent benefit cut?

She answers: No, they don't want a benefit cut.

Would they like a Social Security System fully funded?

Yes, they would.

Is AARP developing a plan to do so?

We are not developing our own plan at this time.

So they want it fully funded. They don't like the PROMISE Act, setting up a process that would lead to a solution, but they are not coming up with their own plan. They are just objecting to people who are coming up with a process to develop a plan.

So I go on to say, to condense it: It seems like what you object to is that, in the PROMISE Act, it is not Senators and Representatives doing the initial analysis, it is a Social Security Commission.

And she says: Basically, yes, that is true.

So I said: If we take out the Social Security Commission and we put together a bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives to start considering all the plans--Senator Whitehouse's plan, Senator Sanders' plan, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Moreno's plan, the Cassidy-Durbin plan--would you support that?

And she said: We would want to talk to you about that.

And I pressed her on that. Wait. You want to talk to us about it? I need a yes or a no.

It is like asking somebody to be married. When you ask somebody: Will you marry me, you don't say: Well, let's talk about it. You say, Hey, dear, either you are going to marry me or you are not. If not, I am out of here. But if you want to, let's get married.

So kind of putting it that way--I didn't ask her to marry me--but I did say: Wait a second. We are going to have a 22- to 28-percent cut in benefits if we do nothing. Your people don't want a cut in benefits. We are talking about a regular-order process, which you say you want, with Representatives and Senators coming together where you would have input, your members would have input, this is--and then bring it back to the Senate Finance Committee for a week of hearings and then bring it to the Senate floor for a vote. Could you support that?

If it is a regular order, which is what it sounds like, yes--meaning they could support it.

Now, I love that. AARP likes what I am about to say.

I have heard that they and others are concerned about the PROMISE Act and how the PROMISE Act would, first, ask a group from the Social Security Advisory Board to come up with a plan.

So to replace the PROMISE Act, I am going to introduce a Senate resolution. The Senate resolution does exactly what I just said. It would immediately--or within a week or two--impanel a group of Senators, invite the House of Representatives to join.

It is a Senate resolution, but we would invite them to join. And we would spend the next 2 months considering all the things that have been proposed to fix Social Security. And we would have open hearings. We would get as much public comment as possible. We would come up with two different proposals and, by the end of September, ask the Social Security actuaries to score these proposals. Does it actually fix Social Security? That would be our goal. And we would start as soon as possible.

We can't wait to get to it someday, Mr. President. We have got to get to it now. There needs to be a sense of urgency. We need to do this like yesterday; if not yesterday, how about tomorrow? And AARP said they could support that process.

And it does go through regular order. All it does is establish a time agreement where, after the products are delivered, they are to be considered by the Senate Finance Committee, and they would come to the Senate floor for further consideration.

I am inviting the House with this resolution, so they also could participate through the Ways and Means Committee. They would have to. That is the whole point.

I would love to have them vote on the resolution, too, but they have been out since July 23. And it is too important to wait to come back until September. Let us pass it in the Senate, pass it in the Senate and invite them to join us, and then that way we could have these hearings through August and September and deliver a product at the beginning of October to the Social Security actuaries to be scored. And then we could consider it.

And by the way, it may be that the products developed are not what the Senate Finance Committee wants. Senator Bernie Sanders could bring his proposal and offer it as an alternative. Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Bernie Moreno, who have got a plan, bipartisan plan, could bring their plan. Or Senator Wyden spoke about his plan; his plan could be offered because we are not, in this resolution, dictating an outcome. We are dictating a process whereby their proposals can be heard. And in that, we can serve the American people.

What we don't want to do is to delay any further because every year we delay, the taxes get higher or the cuts get deeper or the debt gets bigger in order to fix this problem.

What we are doing right now is only setting up a process where Sanders and Wyden and Warren and Moreno and Cassidy and Durbin and Wyden can have their proposals heard.

Mr. President, I am introducing this resolution--I guess I am. We are doing a hotline right now. We are in the process of doing this.

And if you are watching on C-SPAN or somehow seeing this, contact your Senator. Ask them to support this resolution because all it does is set up a process and then demands that Congress does its job. Don't give Congress a free pass on getting into it someday.

I will finish by saying this: I was once given a compliment by both Lindsey Graham at one time and Bernie Sanders at the other, and I will kind of do it with Lindsey's accent: Bill, you are a lousy politician. You are a good Senator, but you are a lousy politician.

I think I should probably take that as a compliment.

So I am a lousy politician. I think right now we all should be lousy politicians. We should all be good Senators. Let us run to the problem. And the problem is the Social Security System is going insolvent. That will lead up to a 28.5-percent benefit cut for seniors if we follow the law. Let us be good Senators. Let us be good Senators and solve this problem beginning now.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with Senator Durbin for up to 30 minutes.

Mr. President, I just told my colleague from Illinois: It has been a ride. We have been trying to set up a process, a process whereby Congress would consider a solution--not prescribe a solution, consider a solution--for Social Security, a process that would have Members of the House and Members of the Senate come together fully open for input from stakeholders, from citizens, to have something to present among all the proposals that are out there--two proposals, three proposals--and whatever we put up would not be the final solution necessarily. It could be replaced by any other Member of the Senate with an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

And people won't even set up a process. We are not talking about a solution. We are talking about a process that would come to a solution maybe that still has to get 60 votes in the U.S. Senate.

Folks say: We need more time. Dick Durbin just chuckled. He goes: They have had 44 years. They have had 44 years. How much more time do they need?

I have got a couple cartoons just to make the case. I think that if we don't set up this process, Congress will be kicking granny off the cliff. That was made famous long ago. There it is. She earned it; she deserves it; she counts on it; and Congress will not set up a process by which to address the issue. Mr. President, 75 million retirees, widows, widowers, others rely on Social. In 6 years, the program, the trust fund--the trust fund goes insolvent. And when that happens, according to the actuaries, there will be either an almost 29 percent benefit reduction or a 40 percent increase in payroll taxes on working Americans.

If that trust fund goes insolvent and that benefit is cut 28.5 percent, as the actuaries say it will, the rate of poverty among Americans over age 65 will increase by 50 percent--by 50 percent.

So here is another cartoon. Congress made a promise, and some people want to ignore it. She paid in; she earned it; she relies on it. But if you ask: Should we do something about Social? Apparently, for some people, the time to do something on Social is never.

Don't disturb Congress. They don't want to take a tough vote--even if that vote only sets up a process--it doesn't even propose a solution--a process whereby Congress is required to fix the issue.

By the way, Social has always been important. It is even more important now that Americans are living longer. And every year we delay fixing Social, the amount of cuts required to balance it increase or the amount of taxes required to fix it increases or the amount of money we have to borrow to fix it increases. There is no good thing about waiting except it allows Congress to dodge its responsibility.

I want to compliment my colleague from Illinois. He came up to me and he goes: Bill, I am leaving the Senate. We need to make a run at fixing Social.

I am leaving the Senate. We need to make a run. By the way, we have a solution, but we are not saying it has to be our solution. All we are trying to do is set up a process by which solutions can be considered. And running out the clock, it may be politically convenient, but it is the wrong thing to do.

Congress' obligation to the American people, to the people that rely upon Social Security, is to act, and it is to act now.

I have another cartoon here just to make the point. It is not just older people affected; it is younger people. Sorry, young folks. You are getting left behind because some say it is not our problem. The Social Security system is going insolvent, and these folks can pay into it. They will never receive a benefit.

These young pages here, they don't recognize it yet, but they are contributing every month on the wages they are getting to a system that will not be there for them unless we do something now.

So before I defer to my colleague, I will just say once more: All we are doing is setting up a process to propose solutions that may or may not pass, that any Senator can bring their own bill and have it as an amendment in the nature of a substitute. It is up to Congress, though, to find a solution.

Now, history will decide whether Congress took up the responsibility of addressing the issue or whether because it was politically advantageous, politically expedient to kick the can down the road once more, even though the road is about to end in a dead end, or, in the case of one of our cartoons, a cliff.

Here. We built a bridge and decided not to finish it. Here. The folks that need to get across the bridge of Social Security will get to it someday. We have got to get to it now. That is the point.

Let's set up a process to be considered. We are talking about the PROMISE Act, which is a Dick Durbin--lead author--Bill Cassidy bill. And there may be another way, but let's set up the process. With that, I defer to my colleague.

Mr. President, Senator Durbin is referring to what's called the PROMISE Act. Again, it is a bill which sets up a process to come to a solution. It doesn't dictate what the solution is.

We have colleagues who are objecting to coming up with a process, and so it is important for our country that Congress tackle this issue. And when I say ``our country,'' I mean the people who live here. And the people who live here, whether they are older or whether they are younger, they are relying upon Congress to step up to its responsibility.

Thank you, Senator Durbin. We will continue to push on this. It is important for our Congress, important for our country, important for our people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have five requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the following interns of my office to be granted floor privileges until August 25, 2026: Lawson Patterson and Ella Chapman.

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

Mr. President, I have been coming up here and talking about, well, a couple of things.

How much does healthcare cost? Right now, people watching from the Gallery, people watching at home, people who happen to be in here--all of us are experiencing a commonality, which is that healthcare is incredibly expensive.

By the way, you may say: No, I have great insurance. It pays for everything.

No, that is coming out of your wages. You are a successful businessman. The people you employ, when you buy them insurance, that comes out of their compensation otherwise, and that is a reality.

The more you pay for health insurance, the less you get paid in your pocketbook because it is coming out of the same bucket.

But if you are one of those who are just having a hard time making it happen, if we look at the things we think of as being expensive-- utilities, entertainment for the family, car payments, groceries, college tuition--it just keeps on climbing--a mortgage. More expensive than all for a family of four is healthcare. That is our problem.

So I have been trying to address it with something that I call the MVP agenda. We, under this plan, would give up to $2,000 to a family of four in a prefunded health savings account, and you add that to price transparency. So money in your pocket with value for the patient--the MVP plan.

It seems really ambitious, but let me just put a little bit more of a point on why this is important. The average family is carrying $10,000 in credit card debt. Now, think about that--$10,000. A family is not paying that off every month. It turns out they are paying the minimum balance due. How do we know that? Because the percentage of income going to credit card interest has almost tripled over the last number of years. They are paying the minimal amount and carrying greater and greater debt in order to make ends meet. Well, they are not really making ends meet; they are just trying to get by right now.

So that is what is stressing the importance of having a plan that actually addresses their needs, not some abstract ``Oh, can't we do it in the by and by, and it may make some indirect difference.'' No. You can directly help a family by putting money in the pocket and coupling that with price transparency to bring value to the patient.

Now, I have some good news. We did something today in HELP Committee, the committee which I chair, called the Price Tags Act--Patients Deserve Price Tags.

Roger Marshall and John Hickenlooper, Senators from Kansas and Colorado, came together for a bill, which my staff helped to put together, and we passed it out of committee, and it is the Patients Deserve Price Tags, which is price transparency for the goods and services you purchase in the healthcare arena.

Now, let's put a little bit of a point on this. I suspect the Presiding Officer

has gone into a restaurant where they don't have the price on the menu. It is like a five-star French restaurant, if there are that many stars, and the waiter doesn't tell you the price. If you ask the price, he looks at you like you shouldn't belong there. If you have to ask the price, you can't afford it.

Usually, if that is the case for my wife and me--in fact, always--we excuse ourselves after having a couple of crackers, and we say: Thank you very much, but we have a crying baby at home. We look a little bit old for a baby. Well, it is a grandchild.

The point being: If they are not telling you the price, probably you can't afford it.

Now, audience, people watching, anybody here, when is the last time you went to a hospital and you said ``Show me the price. Show me the price.'' It just doesn't happen. Do you know there are actually laws out there? But I can tell you, if you ask ``Show me the price,'' you are going to cause confusion.

Now, I am a doctor. I have been in this environment. I always kind of admire--kind of chuckle. I am a gastroenterologist. I used to do colonoscopies. So the patient is there. He has been prepped, which means that his colon has been cleaned out and he has been having diarrhea for about 6 hours. He has a gown on that covers everything but the derriere, a thin sheet above him. And he is given a lot of pieces of paper to sign, and at that point, he has the ability to ask ``How much does this colonoscopy cost?''

Now, that is--you are beyond the point of no return. You are not going to find actionable items, if they are even able to give you the price, at that point. You have already ordered at the French restaurant where they don't show you the price, and they are bringing the food to the table, and by golly, you are going to pay for it no matter how much it is.

But we have passed the Patients Deserve Price Tags Act, and that means that now, the patient is going to be told how much something costs.

If we have a health savings account or if you are just paying cash or in some way you are responsible for the goods and services that you are purchasing, you are going to be told the price.

Why is that? Why is that important? A cardiologist friend told me recently--a couple of years ago, actually--of a cardioversion for atrial fibrillation. If you did it in the doctor's office, it costs you $130; if you did it in the hospital, it costs you $13,000. Now, would it make a difference to someone, if they had a $4,000 deductible, to know that they either pay $130 if they went to the doctor's office or they pay the full deductible and the insurance company pays more but they pay 20 percent of that more if they went to the hospital? I think it would.

So price transparency lowers the cost of being insured and increases wages over time.

By the way, let's get back to our restaurant metaphor. When you go and they don't tell you the price, you kind of have a sense that no matter what you order, you are going to come out substantially poorer. But you are a little bit tight. You go in--you know, maybe when I was a teenager on a date, this was more common--and I can order the surf and turf with the lobster and the filet mignon, and it is going to cost me four times what the spaghetti costs. Now, depending on my budget, I may decide to get the spaghetti. I still have a great meal, still walk away full, nutrition is all satisfied, but because I had the price, I was able to control how much I spent. That is what price transparency does, and the Patients Deserve Price Tags Act begins to give them that price transparency.

Now, by the way, that promotes competition. If you know that if you get your colonoscopy here it is $1,000 and if you get it over there it is $5,000, I can promise you that the place charging $5,000 is going to lower the price.

And the patient with the prefunded health savings account--remember, in the MVP plan--they will have money in their pocket. They have an extra incentive.

I use the example of the woman whose child has an earache. She says: Hey, Siri, which urgent care center near me has the best afterhours price for an appointment for an earache?

Well, here, it is $50; there, it is $250. She is going to go where it is $50, but the one that charges $250 is going to lower their price.

Now, the advantage of this: If you combine the money in the pocket, where they have the prefunded health savings account, with the price transparency, you begin to lower the price of being insured. The patient has the money in their pocket, but now, with the Patients Deserve Price Tags Act, they can spend that money wisely. Instead of that money put into their health savings account being something that people just rebuff, instead, it is something that they can spend wisely.

By the way, they can also begin to purchase a more affordable insurance policy. The Presiding Officer probably, in his businesses, gives a ``You can choose option A or B or C for your insurance.'' If you choose the option with the higher deductible, then the premium is lower. If we have put $2,000 into your health savings account, you can choose that higher deductible because the first $2,000 is covered, and that higher deductible means that you have a lower premium.

The business owner saves money. He can use it to increase wages. But the employee saves money because their share of the premium is likewise less.

So I try to put it this way: If you have the Patients Deserve Price Tags Act and we are able to put money in the pocket and the patients choose the more affordable plan, they pay less. And if you look at the amount of money going to someone's salary--can I see that one. This is the total compensation package that someone gets when they are employed. Now, some of it goes to payroll taxes. That is a fixed portion. That is going out of your income. There is nothing you can do about that.

Your benefits--principally, what you pay for your health insurance-- is the next biggest slice. The more healthcare costs, the more bread you spend on benefits. The less your healthcare costs, the more bread goes into your salary.

Now, for those people who grew up in the sixties, ``bread'' was the word they used for ``money.'' So think about this as being something literal: You have more money in your pocket not just because we have put money into your health savings account but because, as you pay less for insurance, you have less money to pay out of your pocket for the insurance, and the more money you get to keep to live the rest of your life.

We have been talking about people's wages not growing. Boom. That is how wages start to grow again. They begin to shrink the amount going for benefits, which increases the amount somebody has for the rest of their life.

Now, let me just go back to the Patients Deserve Price Tags Act. This is the most expansive, aggressive, comprehensive, patient-focused, business owner-focused piece of legislation for price transparency that has ever passed in Congress. If we pursue further healthcare bills--for example, reconciliation--we can move the ``money in your pocket'' portion, but this would stand on its own--a bipartisan piece of legislation that passed almost unanimously out of committee today and which would benefit almost every American who has got employer- sponsored insurance.

It is a huge first step. We will reconcile with the House, which has passed their own version of price transparency. This administration has been very aggressive promoting transparency. I am pleased to say that a significant portion of the MVP agenda passed out of committee; it is going to be headed to the President's desk soon; and, most importantly, individuals will have more money in their pocket and better coverage for their health.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the following interns in my office to be granted floor privileges until July 23, 2026: Anna Shaffer and David Rockett.

Mr. President, Scripture says that ``greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends.''

Deputy U.S. Marshal Drew Hanson was a member of the Western District of Louisiana's Fugitive Task Force.

More importantly, he was a husband, a father, and tragically he was shot and killed while arresting a man on sexual battery charges. Deputy Hanson displayed the greatest love; love for his country, love for justice, love for others.

The man who murdered him took his life, yes. But no criminal, no weapon can take a man's honor, courage, or legacy.

Mr. President, I ask for a moment of silence for Drew's family, for his friends, for his community, as we know they are grieving tremendously.

(Moment of silence.)

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the postcloture time with respect to the Flowers nomination be expired and the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination at 11:30 a.m. tomorrow; further, that the cloture motions filed during Monday's session of the Senate ripen following disposition of the Flowers nomination; that if cloture is invoked on the Martin nomination, the postcloture time be expired at 2 p.m. tomorrow and the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination; further, that if cloture is invoked on the Pozos nomination, the postcloture time be expired and the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader, notwithstanding rule XXII, and no earlier than Thursday, July 23; further, that the cloture motion with respect to the Traynor nomination ripen at 5:30 p.m. tomorrow; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during tomorrow's session of the Senate, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.