Floor Statements

Madam President, I am here to talk about the SAVE America Act.

I have had two people already tell me my sign is upside down. The Presiding Officer is probably thinking it. I can tell the pages are too. It is a lot easier to show your photo ID when you go to vote than it is to read the poster. How do I know that? Because I go to vote and I show them my photo ID in Louisiana, which has a long history of, shall we say, people voting who are already buried. We no longer have that history since we have begun to put photo IDs out.

Think about that. It is no imposition upon our people, and now we don't have a problem with voter integrity despite our having had a long history of it, so I am told.

We keep on hearing that it is too difficult, so we have a commonsense, widely supported bill which is being objected to. The same people objecting to this bill don't object to having to show an ID to buy a gun, which is a constitutional right, but when it comes to this constitutional right and protecting its integrity, it doesn't work. The SAVE America Act is supported by 71 percent of Democrat voters and 95 percent of Republicans. If only it were supported by 71 percent of Democrat Senators. That is why I am a proud cosponsor.

You might scratch your head when you hear that some refuse to support it. I think that there is a small leftwing base who opposes this who is very vocal; therefore, that is the genesis of the opposition, but this does not keep an eligible American from casting a ballot. It doesn't take away someone's constitutional right.

I will say Mike Lee, who is sitting next to me, has been working with those who object to its passage in order to meet their concerns.

For example, one of the concerns is that, if someone marries and changes her name and her driver's license is different than her birth certificate, she won't be able to vote. I just confirmed with Mike--and he can tell me the page number and the line number, of course--that now all you have to do is sign an affidavit. My wife was born a Layden. When we married, she became a Cassidy. If she went and they said, ``Well, your birth certificate says Layden and now you are a Cassidy,'' she would sign an affidavit. ``I am married, and my name is now Cassidy,'' and--boom--she is there. So, as to the concern that it is discriminatory against women who marry and take their husbands' last names, just sign an affidavit.

Similarly--and, again, I don't always find Mr. Lee the most reasonable person. On this, he has been very reasonable, which is that, when you go originally to vote and you have to prove you are a citizen, Mike--I am sorry. I should not be addressing him--you can sign an affidavit establishing that I don't have my birth certificate but that I was born on this date, in this community, and you get to register to vote. The State shall come up with a mechanism by which that is allowed. It is really an attempt to meet the objections of those who oppose this bill. The lack of documentation is not an issue.

By the way, I will also point out, I have lost my birth certificate in the past. I called the place where I was born, and within a week, I had it in the mail, but now I am sure you can do it online. So even should you need a birth certificate--people lose birth certificates all the time. Then they get them back.

We have to show a photo ID or our citizenship sometimes, like, at least on a weekly basis. You fly. You open a bank account. You cash a check. All of those are routine activities of our lives, and you show your driver's license, which is a Real ID.

Those who are opposing this say that they are concerned regarding the woman who marries and takes her husband's name. That has been addressed; that you have to prove citizenship, but you don't have the documents when you go over to vote. That has been addressed; that the very fact of showing an ID is discriminatory. Yet over and over again in life, we show IDs to do things that are part of daily life.

I will note that, when New York City Mayor Mamdani offered New Yorkers a chance to make a little extra money snow shoveling during the blizzard last month, he required not one but two forms of valid ID.

So it is a weak argument when leading Democratic figures are having their citizens show ID. It is a weak argument that you have to endure some incredible hardship to show an ID to vote.

By the way, I have been asked about the talking filibuster. I have supported returning to the talking filibuster since I joined the Senate in 2015. I still remember Jimmy Stewart's ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.'' It was rough on the Senators, but being rough on the Senators, frankly, kind of pushed people together to get something done. I am from Louisiana. For the longest time, Huey Long had the record for the longest filibuster, but that filibuster eventually either broke him or it broke the Senate in the sense that they were willing to compromise to get something done.

So, to my Democratic colleagues, I ask you to listen to the people. Pass the SAVE America Act.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I understand that there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Thursday, March 12; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate resume consideration of Calendar No. 343, H.R. 6644, Housing for the 21st Century Act; further, that all postcloture time be expired at 11:30 a.m.; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time, and the Senate vote on the passage of the bill, as amended; further, that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture motion filed on March 10 ripen at 1:45 p.m.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, I would like to speak to the SAVE America Act.

The United States was founded on the principle that the right to vote is sacred and that protecting it is our sacred responsibility.

I am going to read a quote from the Boston Gazette, published on April 16, 1781. This is Samuel Adams' writing 245 years ago:

Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his

vote . . . that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts

in human society for which he is accountable to God and his

country.

I often find that principles described in history become more relevant with time, and today, as this Congress debates whether proof of citizenship should be required to vote in Federal elections, those words from 1781 speak clearly to us now.

When you ask the American people about this, there isn't much debate. I had two telephone townhall meetings this afternoon--one in north Louisiana, one in south. I asked: Press 1 if you support the SAVE Act. Press 2 if you don't and 3 if you are undecided.

In both cases, with Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, 83 percent supported the SAVE Act. It turns out, nationwide, that is also what the American people say regardless of their party: 71 percent of Democrats and 95 percent of Republicans. That is why I am a proud cosponsor of the SAVE America Act--that is, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act.

By the way, in my State of Louisiana, we already have to show an ID to vote, and we participate. It isn't like this is an obstacle to voting--no. This is actually something that people adjust to, and there is no problem. Why? We are used to it. When the Presiding Officer and I get on an airplane to fly to Washington to do the people's business, we have to show an ID of some sort. I know that when people go to political conventions, they have to show an ID to get their credentials to nominate the person running for President. It seems like it is reasonable to say that if you need an ID to get a credential at a convention in order to nominate someone to be President, we could ask people to show an ID to vote for that President.

Now, when you hear that Senate Democrats refuse to support the SAVE America Act, you kind of scratch your head. Again, we use an ID for so many other things. Why shouldn't we have an ID to choose the leader who is going to steer the future of the United States? There is something kind of odd about that, especially when the American people are speaking so clearly.

As far as the talking filibuster is concerned, I have supported returning to the talking filibuster since I joined the Senate in 2015. Let's see the proposal. Let us look at it. We can debate the proposal and then get it done. It is common sense, and it is overwhelmingly supported by the American people. Only 1 percent say they are undecided.

My Senate Democrats know that most of the constituents are for verifying citizenship to vote. They are ignoring the will of the people they represent. I can only assume it is to appease a small, leftwing base--the 16 percent of the people who are against it.

This does not prevent an eligible American from casting a ballot. It doesn't take away anyone's constitutional right. It simply strengthens trust in our system by ensuring that only citizens participate in Federal elections, which is as our Founding Fathers intended. Our constitutional Republic was founded on the principle that every lawful vote should count and that no unlawful vote should dilute the voices of the American citizens.

The SAVE America Act is simple, reasonable, and widely supported. When it comes to the Senate floor next week for a vote, I ask my Senate Democratic colleagues to remember this: You command an ID to buy a gun, which is one constitutional right, but you won't require it to cast a vote, which is another constitutional right. Listen to the people. Pass the SAVE America Act.

With that, I move on to other business.

Mr. President, I would like to honor the life and legacy of Dr. Joe S. Green--the ``Bayou Bishop''--a devoted minister and veteran who helped teach, train, and care for his community in Rapides Parish, the State of Louisiana, and around the world. Born on May 20, 1940 in Pineville, LA, Dr. Green grew up as a farm boy on Bayou Rapides. From his youth, Dr. Green demonstrated his immense commitment to service by participating in many activities and ministries in First Evening Star Baptist church and his local community.

On October 1, 1958, high school sweethearts reunited. Dr. Green and Josephine Reed Green said, ``I do.'' Together, they had three beautiful children and built a family rooted in love and faith for over 62 years.

Dr. Green was drafted into the military while attending Southern University. His participation in the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps paved the way for him to join the Special Forces in the 82nd Airborne Division. Here, Dr. Green taught, trained, and cared for people, allowing him to work in his God-given purpose. After 26 years of service, Dr. Green retired from the military and worked as a recruiter and trainer for the U.S. Department of Labor before answering the call to the ministry.

Dr. Green held bachelor of theology, master of religion, master of theology, and doctor of divinity degrees. He began his ministry at Second Evening Star Baptist Church in Rapides Station, LA. Later, the Lord called Dr. Green to shepherd St. Matthew Baptist Church. It was here where he utilized his unique, down-to-earth style of preaching and helped grow membership from 50 members to more than 1,200 members, including the addition of over 40 ministries. In addition to serving as a pastor, Dr. Green founded Rapides Station Community Ministries, a faith-based nonprofit organization, providing affordable housing to Louisiana families. Dr. Green led outreach initiatives across the United States and into Africa.

Dr. Green's thoughts are memorialized in part in the book ``Bayou Bishop: Life and Lessons from Dr. Joe S. Green.'' As we acknowledge his distinguished legacy and service, his essence is summarized in this: ``Making disciples, winning the unchurched and empowering them to become fully functioning followers of Jesus Christ.''

Mr. President, I thank Senator Markey.

Let me just point out that this continues Senator Markey's decades- long work on protecting children in this sort of environment, work which I have been privileged to join for the last couple of years. Every parent should know that their child can go online without being tracked, targeted, or taken advantage of.

Now every child, it seems, is using the internet for school, for connections, and just to look things up, but they shouldn't have to pay for that access with their personal information, particularly when the child doesn't understand the value of their personal information. They should not have their data collected, shared, or sold without their knowledge and consent and without the knowledge and consent of their parents.

That is why the Children and Teens' Online Privacy Protection Act, COPPA 2.0, matters. It updates the rules for today's digital world and places protections where they belong--around our children. This bill gives families the confidence that their child can learn and connect and explore online safely.

Again, I thank Senator Markey for his collaboration on this.

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 want to recognize Winton P. Lofton, Sr., a proud resident of Winnsboro, LA, who will turn 100 years old on February 17.

Winton grew up in Franklin Parish and answered the call to service at just 17 years old, enlisting in the U.S. Navy during World War II. He served for 6 years, traveling tens of thousands of miles from home. Winton is now the sole surviving World War II veteran in Franklin Parish, a living reminder of all the great men and women who fought for our country and secured our freedom.

Since returning home, Winton has devoted his life to his community and his church. He and his wife Marie have helped build churches across the country and remain pillars of their local faith community. A devout Southern Baptist, Winton continues to pray every day for our country and its leadership.

I am told he is still driving at 100 years young, and that his faith, discipline, and love of country remain as strong as ever.

Winton, thank you for your service. You make Louisiana proud. Happy birthday.

Mr. President, I rise on a very sad occasion, recognizing Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office Deputy Christopher Ohlmeyer, a motorcycle officer who was just killed in a traffic motor vehicle accident. His death will be felt by his family, his fellow officers, and our entire State.

Christopher Ohlmeyer was a great officer, but he was more than the uniform he wore. He was a husband, a father, and a friend.

The way that he died, though tragic, is a testament to the way he lived. Deputy Ohlmeyer was struck as he was serving as a motorcycle escort for a funeral procession and was hit by a car from behind. In his final moments, he was serving someone else.

I am told that those who did not have a family were invited to be part of his; that he brought people together; that he was deeply committed to serving his community.

May we pray for his family, remember his sacrifice, and strive to live our legacy and our lives in whatever way we can, as he did his.

With gratitude for Deputy Ohlmeyer's service and remembrance of his life, Mr. President, I ask that we pause for a moment to remember Deputy Ohlmeyer.

(Moment of silence.)

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this past Friday, thousands of Americans, young and old, marched peacefully to call attention to the sanctity and inherent value of each life. Their advocacy and passion drive our work on Capitol Hill to protect women and unborn children.

I am a doctor, and I learned in medical school that a child's life begins in the womb. Abortion ends that life.

Medically, morally, there is no difference in the value of a child, whether she is in her mother's arm or her mother's womb. And as a doctor, I learned the first rule is to do no harm. Chemical abortion drugs are designed to do harm, to eliminate the life of the unborn child, and, at times, to do harm to the child's mother.

That is why as chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I focused our first hearing of 2026 on the dangers of the chemical abortion drug mifepristone. Women, families, and unborn children deserve that we do so. I thank Louisiana attorney general Liz Murrill and Dr. Monique Wubbenhorst for sharing the real-life impact abortion drugs have on women and their unborn children. Their testimonies confirm the need to restore the previous in-person dosing requirements that the Biden administration recklessly removed.

Chemical abortion drugs are not safe, run-of-the-mill drugs. You shouldn't be able to order them without undergoing a proper medical examination and screening--screening--not just to see the stage of the pregnancy but to make sure that the person who is going to receive the drug is not being coerced to take the drug.

Let's first speak about potential side effects. One study showed that 9 in 10 women who take a chemical abortion drug describe their pain as moderate to severe. Half say it was worse than expected. Another study found that 1 in 10 women undergoing mifepristone abortions experience serious adverse events, including hemorrhage, adverse bleeding, sepsis, or infection. Now, that sounds so medical, but this is not about statistics or about how doctors speak; it is about women with real stories.

Without the in-person dispensing requirement, pregnant women across the country, including my State of Louisiana, are at risk of being coerced into having an abortion against their will.

Attorney General Murrill testified about a 16-year-old girl from Louisiana who was planning to have a gender reveal party, and instead her mother forced her to take the abortion pill. And instead of a gender reveal party, she ended up in the emergency room with complications from taking the medicine.

The pill she took was prescribed by a doctor in New York. Now, it violates Louisiana's law that would not have allowed the doctor from New York to prescribe this, but the doctor in New York did not know the age of the fetus within the woman's womb.

And she certainly didn't have the opportunity to ask her: Do you really want to take this? If she had asked the young girl, the young lady: Do you really want to take this, she would have found out that she didn't; that it was her mother getting the pill for her,

and her mother was coercing her to take the medicine.

Now, pregnant women in Louisiana and across the country, again, receive these drugs through the mail, often from somebody out of their State who never does an ultrasound to see the stage of the pregnancy. And this is reckless. The medicine is only approved to be taken within the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. One reason why--I am not an obstetrician--one reason why though is that as the fetus grows inside the womb, at some point the fetus is too large to pass safely through the opening of the womb.

The FDA has not reviewed the safety risk of taking it after 10 weeks. Women now are taking it, in the testimony we had, at week 20. This becomes a safety risk for the mother if she cannot pass the fetus, the child stays in her womb, and she is at risk of infection, at risk of, again, going to the emergency room and finding out that she is otherwise sick.

By the way, I am a gastroenterologist, but my colleague Dr. Marshall, who is an obstetrician, is also on the HELP Committee. And he pointed out that many women are inaccurately describing how far along their pregnancy is. If you ask a woman, when was your last menstrual cycle, that should date how many weeks she is pregnant. But Dr. Marshall, an obstetrician with decades of clinical practice, will say that it is inexact, and the standard of care is to calculate the gestational age of the child by doing an ultrasound. When the woman knows that the child is further along, she will find out that the child actually has a heartbeat and could live outside the womb, and some will reconsider, on their own volition, whether or not they want to have the abortion. This is why the in-person visit to the doctor is so important.

Now, in some cases, these drugs are being mailed from outside of the United States. We don't know what is in them. They are not labeled in compliance with FDA guidelines, and, again, there is no patient-doctor relationship where the pregnant woman can seek needed followup care for the serious adverse events.

So let's be clear, if the chemical abortion drug were any other medicine, coming from an unknown country with unknown ingredients, being prescribed by an out-of-state doctor who does not see the patient--it is being taken off label, not in line with FDA guidelines, and sometimes the patient, well-documented, is being coerced into taking it--there should be bipartisan outrage. So why is this drug, this condition any different?

How did we get here to the point where abortion pills can be ordered online, mailed, taken with no medical supervision or safeguards with coercion? Think of the girls, the women in abusive relationships, or those who are being trafficked whose voices have been silenced.

Now, I was just in an airplane bathroom and, you know, noticing things in the bathroom, and I noticed the sign there: ``Call this number if you are being trafficked.''

It understood that a young person being taken to a Super Bowl-- because oftentimes young people being trafficked are brought to a big event like a Super Bowl--it is happening right now--are going to be on an airplane, and it tells them speak to the flight attendant or call this number if you are being trafficked.

And it struck me that we will put a sign in an airplane bathroom--and thank goodness for Southwest Airlines doing that--we will put a sign in a bathroom to inform the young lady of the risk of being trafficked and how to get out of it. But at the same time, we don't do anything about the pimp who might be getting the pill, forcing her to take it to end a pregnancy that resulted from her being trafficked. Shouldn't we tell her the truth of a chemical abortion?

Now, as chairman of the HELP Committee, I strongly urge Secretary Robert Kennedy and Commissioner Makary to complete the review of mifepristone that they both promised that they would complete during their confirmation hearings.

They both said they would complete it. It has not been completed. Many other things of much less seriousness and much less priority have been completed but not this. And when we are asked, we are told it is in the by-and-by. This should be completed now, not as being prescribed as the FDA said it is being prescribed or should be prescribed, but it is being prescribed in real life, after week 10, long after the FDA has approved for its use.

Republican members of my committee and many other Senators expect an answer. At an absolute minimum, the previous in-person safeguards should be restored immediately by the Trump administration. We should go back to the way it was in Trump 1 where, if you are going to get this medication, you must see a doctor and allow that evaluation to occur.

And by the way, this is not just Republicans saying this. A recent poll found that 71 percent of Americans, including 67 percent who self- identify as pro-choice, support requiring a doctor's visit for the chemical abortion drug to be prescribed.

We should be supporting women with the resources they need to have a happy, healthy pregnancy, and we need to be informing them of the complications that they can have from taking this medicine. And the least we should do is require an in-person visit so that the patient can be evaluated by her doctor so that the doctor can determine that, one, it is safe for the pregnancy, even if you are pro-choice, safe for the woman to take the drug, even if it is not safe for the child, and that the woman is not being coerced to take it. That should be the stance of a pro-life administration.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, sometimes, in Washington, you feel like there is nothing anyone can agree on. But one thing we can all agree on, no matter what your party, healthcare is too expensive.

I am a doctor who worked at a hospital in the public hospital system for the working uninsured and poorly insured. And it is not just the poor but middle-income Americans who have a really hard time right now affording their healthcare.

There is a little bit of irony here. ObamaCare came into existence, and it was supposed to decrease premiums by $2,400 a year. Since then, premiums have probably risen an aggregate of 100 percent since that law was passed. Part of this--part of this--is waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars. So we pay higher premiums, and the taxpayer is getting ripped off as well.

Here are just some recent examples. In November, a Federal jury in West Palm Beach convicted two individuals in a $233 million ObamaCare fraudulent enrollment scheme. Earlier this year, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services identified 2.8 million duplicate enrollments across Medicaid and ObamaCare, which wastes an estimated $14 billion annually.

Just a few weeks ago, the Government Accountability Office released a report highlighting likely significant fraud in the ObamaCare Marketplace due to lack of proper verification. In this report, by the way, the GAO put up shoddy data on purpose to see if it would be accepted, and it was accepted across the board, even though they came nowhere close to providing the information they were supposed to provide.

The American people want lower healthcare costs. They also want us to protect their taxpayer dollars from fraud and abuse. So we need a healthcare system that protects patients and families but doesn't reward a ``get rich quick by any means'' fraudster looking to get an extra buck from the Federal taxpayer.

That is why Republicans have focused on a way forward on healthcare that actually lowers costs, fights fraud, and gives power to the patient, not profit to the insurance company, not ill-gotten gains to the criminal.

My Democratic colleagues are about to put up a resolution that would do a Congressional Review Act on a recent rule put out by the administration to fight waste, fraud, and abuse. For whatever reason, this resolution wants to fight fighting waste, fraud, and abuse. And if the CRA passes, it will eliminate commonsense measures for waste, fraud, and abuse--to eliminate them, to at least address them--as well as safeguards ensuring that subsidies go to patients who qualify, those who need it to afford coverage.

By the way, the resolution being offered by my Democratic colleagues will raise insurance premiums by 5 percent. They are offering a CRA that raises premiums, the effect of, by 5 percent. That is money that a family could use to pay their car note, their flood insurance note, their grocery bill--you name it--rent for their apartment, and, instead, it is going to insurance companies.

I don't quite know why my Democratic colleagues are so entrenched in protecting a broken system. They are willing to raise premiums by 5 percent to protect the status quo.

All that said, I am a doctor who worked in the public hospital system for over 20 years, trying to bring healthcare to people who otherwise couldn't afford it. Let's work together. Let's find a solution that actually lowers costs, doesn't increase premiums. Let's find a solution that squeezes out waste, eliminates and prosecutes fraud, not a system in which they are rewarded.

As a doctor, as a conservative, as an American, as a steward of the Federal taxpayer--when I say Federal taxpayer, I mean you and me and everybody watching and everyone in the Gallery--let's steward that money correctly. I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution and continue with bipartisan, important work to make healthcare more affordable.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to support Senator Mullin's legislation, the Mikaela Naylon Give Kids a Chance Act.

Mr. President, I am a doctor, and people become desperate because of their illness, and they want just one more chance for themselves, their child, whomever.

The folks who are most desperate are the parents for their child, and we all know that, because if someone dies when they are 70, it can be tragic, but they have lived 70 good years, and when someone dies when she is 6, she is denied 76 more years. It is the desperation of these families that kind of cries out for this piece of legislation. They want this passed.

The goal of this legislation is to get cures for pediatric cancer to the patient more quickly.

Now, we have been working on this for several years--Democrats and Republicans--trying to make it so that those families, their desperate pleas are actually heard. And just as the Senator from Oklahoma noted, the legislation was recently renamed to the honorable legacy of Mikaela Naylon, who spent her final days advocating for better pediatric drug research.

The irony here is that the objection is going to come out of a genuine concern that people achieve healthcare, a concern I share for increased funding, for funding to be extended for community health centers. I share that concern.

But there is no one way to treat the ills, literally the ills of the United States of America. And to think that we can do it all at once, it is just not true.

But also to say that you are not going to give a chance for children to have a cure for cancer if you don't get what you want, is just not true. It is selfish. It is tragic. These parents are desperate for this act.

Now, this will expand the research and drug development for these pediatric illnesses, and I commit as chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that I will work to pass community health center legislation. I will work to have it well funded. I will not let it sit on the back burner never getting done. There is a commitment from the chairman to work with my Democratic colleague to get it passed this year. If that is the only barrier between offering these children hope, I ask that that not be a barrier.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the nomination.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, what we are debating here are two visions of the future of the ObamaCare exchange. Democrats want to cover the cost of health insurance to benefit health insurance companies. And Republicans want to cover the cost of health insurance to benefit patients.

Now, I can actually kind of develop that idea. If you look at what insurance--what Democrats want to do, they want to give 100 percent of the money to the insurance companies. And the insurance company, by law, under ObamaCare, can take 20 percent of it for overhead and profit. Eighty percent of it goes to patient care, but, of course, you have got to get your prior authorization and permission for this 80 percent to be spent upon you.

On the other hand, the Republican plan is to put the money into the patient's pocketbook so that she has money to pay for the insurance out of pocket. And here, 100 percent of the money she receives goes toward some sort of healthcare or dental care or vision care. By the way, that is a distinction. Under the Democratic plan, the insurance company doesn't cover your dental work, they don't cover the orthodontia for your child, and they don't cover the eyeglasses you need. Under what we are doing, putting it into her pocketbook, for physicians, dentists, drugs, vision care--this is a patient-driven account, of which 100 percent is going to the care she knows she needs. And she does not need to seek permission in order to obtain it.

Now, to put a little bit of a point on it, a 50-year-old couple with children 19 and 20 could get as much as $5,000 in their account. Think about what that means for somebody with chronic disease. If you have diabetes, under the Democratic plan, there is a $6,000 deductible; and someone has to pay $6,000 before they begin to get coverage for everything they need for their chronic disease. Under the Republican plan, putting $5,000 for that couple I spoke of earlier, with two children, it is in their pocketbook. They can pay for that which they need for chronic disease. So what is not to like?

I would say that the Republican plan meets Americans where they are financially. Most Americans don't have more than $1,000 in their savings account.

Let me repeat that: Most Americans don't have $1,000 in their savings account.

The Democratic plan would require them to have a deductible and to pay $6,000 before the insurance kicks in.

So let's compare the two plans. The red side is the Democratic plan, and the green side is the Republican plan. The Democratic plan is to give 100 percent of the enhanced premium tax credits to insurance companies. The Republican plan is to give the money to the patient-- into her pocket, her pocketbook, her purse--to pay the out-of-pocket for the insurance plan.

What could it be used for? Under the Democratic plan, it subsidizes premiums. Under the Republican plan, the patient gets the care she knows she needs--the physician visit, the dental visit, the glasses, the prescriptions. And she doesn't need permission to do it. She does it because she knows she needs it.

Who makes the decision?

Anyone who has fought with an insurance company over prior authorization knows that the golden rule applies: The one who has the gold makes the rules. And the insurance company makes the rules as to what you can get. And by the way, that does not cover dental, orthodontic work, eyeglasses, and other things.

Here, the patient decides. The patient has the power. It is not profit to insurance companies; it is power to the patient. And if she needs eyeglasses, she uses this money that we put into her account to purchase them. If her child needs to go to the dentist for dental cleaning, she can do that.

Does it lower costs? Well, if you give the money to the insurance company, clearly, it does not, because since the ObamaCare law passed, costs have exploded. But studies show that if you give the patient the money in her pocketbook, she is going to shop for the best deal. She is going to say: Wait a second. The x ray costs $50 here and $500 there-- and the difference can be that much. I am going to go to the place where it is cheaper.

Now, as soon as everybody starts going to the place where it is less expensive, the place that is more expensive lowers its cost. That has been shown empirically to work.

The Republican plan gives the patient the power to shop, the power to take advantage of price competition; and that lowers costs.

One more thing, how does it work with low-cost bronze plans? Under the tax cuts for working families bill, Republicans passed a law saying that health savings accounts--this kind of putting money in the pocket--can work with a bronze plan. So, if you

give the money to the bronze plan, which is permitted under current law, the patient now has the ability to purchase a cheaper plan on the exchange, saving thousands of dollars relative to the plan that Democrats want to force somebody to buy. And what we have seen under the current system is that there are all kinds of fraud and there are all kinds of unauthorized enrollment, costing taxpayers billions of dollars.

Now, it has been said that somehow Republicans are supporting junk insurance. And you have got to laugh. Mr. President, you have got to laugh. Republicans are using the same plans on ObamaCare that Democrats fought for. We are merely taking the framework, set up on a unanimous partisan vote by Democrats, to create these plans on ObamaCare, and that is the one we are using. So for some to call those junk plans, it is kind of like saying: We gave the American people junk.

I would argue that the Republican Party is making these better.

Look at this. Under the Democratic plan, there is a $6,000 deductible. Imagine the housewife who has to take her child to the urgent care center and knows she doesn't have the money.

This is a cartoon, but in that cartoon, there is real stress and anxiety for that mama who cannot afford the care she knows her daughter needs.

Look at this one, the Republican plan. She has got money in her pocket. She has got money in her account. She has got money in her pocket for the insurance out-of-pocket. And if she starts off with money in her purse to pay for that need, why can't people see that is where the American people are?

If the average American family has less than $1,000 to spend and our plan puts thousands in their account to pay for the healthcare that they know they need, what is the objection to that?

Now, by the way, I think you finally found the objection. There is a concern that Republicans are somehow interjecting abortion politics. And I will point out that Democrats have voted for appropriations bills with Hyde protections since the 1970s. For over four decades, Democrats have voted for language on this issue, and suddenly--suddenly--they are shocked. So instead of giving this patient the money she needs, it is going to be sacrificed on the altar of abortion politics.

I say: Go with her. I say: Support her.

Let's go to the last slide, please.

We need to make healthcare affordable again.

One, we know the Democratic extension will not pass. It is going to stick people with $6,000 deductibles. It does nothing for fraud. It is not a solution. What we need--by the way, I am also going to say this: I am, obviously, saying we don't need the Democratic solution. My Democratic friends will say they don't like the Republican solution.

Let me argue that we try and get an American solution, not an R, not a D, but an A solution. And if we do so, let's give power to the patient, not profit to the insurance company. Let's make healthcare affordable again.

With that, I yield the floor.

Would the Senator yield?

I didn't show the poster, but in our proposal taking the 50-year-old couple with 2 kids, 19 and 20, their family would get $5,000 in their account, and the net deductible would be less than the silver plan the Democrats want. And the policy premium would be $6,000 less a year.

So if the plan, that my good friend the minority whip is saying is the better plan, has a higher net deductible, that, I don't think, works for the gentleman's knee replacement.

And the family $5,000 deductible can be applied, so you would have $5,000 top.

I have taken too much time, but thank you for yielding.