Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have often said that our veterans have sacrificed so much for our Nation, so it is our responsibility to take care of them when they come home. We owe a debt of gratitude to these brave Americans.

I have been proud to work alongside my colleagues in the Senate to strengthen mental health resources, increase access to healthcare, and ensure that the Department of Veterans Affairs is managing Federal resources effectively to serve our veterans well.

While I work in Congress on behalf of our Nation of veterans, many organizations work daily to support this selfless group of people. There is one Iowa organization that I would like to highlight. It is called the Veteran Flagpole Initiative. The Veteran Flagpole Initiative started with a group of passionate Iowans who would install flagpoles for veterans at no cost to the veteran.

The group started their work to provide veterans with a permanent, visual reminder of their appreciation--our constituents' appreciation for the veterans' service and sacrifice. The goal is to ensure at least one veteran in all of Iowa's 99 counties has a flagpole by 2028, and I am sure that their goal is to go well beyond that.

Their work continues at a time when the flag and what it stands for is continually under attack, both here and abroad. It serves then as a reminder that change begins at home, and one individual in America can make a difference--some of them making big differences, maybe some making smaller differences.

And we don't know the end result of the Veteran Flagpole Initiative, but they are trying to make a big difference. Looking after those around us provides a valuable lesson because you never know what someone else may be facing, and the very small acts--as well as big acts--of service may turn out to have monumental impact. So thank you to the Veteran Flagpole Initiative and the many other organizations and individuals that support our veterans daily.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today, I placed a hold on three Department of the Treasury nominees. The nominees are Brian Morrissey, Jr., of Virginia, to be General Counsel for the Department of the Treasury; Francis Brooke, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; and Jonathan McKernan, of Tennessee, to be an Under Secretary of the Treasury.

During consideration of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, I worked with my colleagues to provide wind and solar an appropriate glidepath for the orderly phase-out of the tax credits. Ultimately, Congress enshrined in statute a 12-month transition period based on when projects ``begin construction.''

What it means for a project to ``begin construction'' has been well established by Treasury guidance for more than a decade. Moreover, Congress specifically references current Treasury guidance to set that term's meaning in law. This is a case where both the law and congressional intent are clear.

The Department of the Treasury is expected to issue rules and regulations implementing the agreed upon phase-out of the wind and solar credits by August 18, 2025.

Until I can be certain that such rules and regulations adhere to the law and congressional intent, I intend to continue to object to the consideration of these Treasury nominees.

Mr. President, throughout my annual 99-county tour of Iowa, I have learned firsthand from patients and pharmacists about the powerful and negative role that pharmacy benefit managers play in our prescription drug supply chain.

I led a 2-year investigation into insulin price-gouging that showed PBMs encouraged drugmakers to spike the drug's list price in order to offer greater rebates. This secured manufacturers' priority placement on covered meds--all at the expense of patients.

I have pressed the Federal Trade Commission, the FTC, to study PBMs. The FTC's two interim staff reports are very helpful, but I am eager to get the FTC's full study.

In April, I held a Judiciary Committee markup that advanced to the Senate floor my Prescription Pricing for the People Act. The bill will hold the FTC accountable for producing their PBM study in a timely manner. A timely report on PBMs is critical, but we can stop some anti- competitive PBM behavior today. Arbitrary clawbacks and spread pricing are documented tactics PBMs deploy to fill their pockets at the expense of patients and pharmacies. This must stop.

Senator Cantwell and I worked on the PBM Transparency Act through the Commerce Committee to direct the FTC to stop deceptive and unfair pricing schemes by PBMs and require more transparency.

I have also worked on and supported the Finance Committee's PBM legislation from the last Congress. Iowans are fed up with the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs and reduced access. Americans are fed up. They are eager for Congress to act to put a stop to shady PBM practices. I look forward to making this happen and passing PBM reforms.

We have had about three different approaches to PBM reform, probably cosponsored by 65 to 70 Senators in the U.S. Senate. I know that Senator Cassidy of Louisiana is working real hard to bring together one piece of legislation out of these three. I want to encourage him--I have encouraged him--and I said that I would work with him to help accomplish this. And I thank Senator Cassidy for his leadership in this area, and he is chairman of one of the important committees working on PBM legislation.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, my remarks were written 3 days ago, and the purpose of writing those remarks 3 days ago was to come to the floor and tell you about a person that I think should not be working for the Federal Government. Then the next day, I found out somebody in government was smart enough to see that this guy was fired. But I would like to now tell the Senate why I think people like this shouldn't be working for the Federal Government and why I obviously thought he should be fired.

This refers to Dr. Vinay Prasad. Recently, the Wall Street Journal published an article on this person.

Until Tuesday, Dr. Prasad served as the Food and Drug Administration's--FDA--Chief Medical and Scientific Officer and as the Director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

I wonder how he got the job in the first place, and you will understand through my remarks why I wonder how he got that job.

He was appointed by the FDA Commissioner to this position.

According to media reports, Dr. Prasad left the Agency. The Wall Street Journal said the position he held at FDA was ``one of the most powerful officials in the federal government,'' and gets to determine ``whether patients get access to many life-saving medicines. Or not.''

Sadly, Dr. Prasad believes the Federal Government should restrict access to new treatments that could extend your life.

Dr. Prasad wrote a 2016 article entitled ``The case for rationing: Why we should limit public spending on cancer drugs.'' Dr. Prasad says that ``among 71 new drugs approved for solid tumors between 2002 and 2014, the median improvement in survival is just 2.1 months.'' He believes that when costs are large and the benefits are small, the government should restrict access. He thinks patients don't have the right to extend their lives.

Dr. Prasad is a proponent of what we call government rationing of care that we see in socialized healthcare systems such as the United Kingdom and Canada.

Dr. Prasad sounds like another physician, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, who at one time wielded a lot of power in the Federal Government. Dr. Emanuel is considered the ``architect'' of Obamacare and served as Special Advisor for Health Policy to President Obama. In 2014, this architect of Obamacare wrote in The Atlantic: ``Why I Hope to Die At 75.'' He argues that people should just check out once they reach 75 years.

Dr. Emanuel has long argued for rationing healthcare and treating the elderly differently because they ``already had more life-years.'' You can even take an online course titled ``Rationing Care'' at the University of Pennsylvania, taught by Dr. Emanuel.

The government rationing care goes by another name that we throw around, but I have talked about examples of it so you know that it is real, called socialized medicine. Socialized medicine results in longer wait times and delayed care.

Here are some recent examples of outcomes of socialized medicine:

In January, hundreds of Canadian residents in Walkerton, Ontario, began forming a line at 2 a.m. in the dead of winter just to be put on a waiting list to see the town's new family doctor. Some residents have waited more than a decade to have a doctor in that town.

In 2023, 7.1 million people in England were stuck on a waiting list for nonemergency hospital treatment like hip replacements. Today, that waiting list is 200,000 more at 7.3 million people.

Now, you wonder why people come to the United States for medical care, from other countries. That is one of the reasons why.

Of all new medicines launched between 2012 and 2021, 85 percent were available in the United States compared to less than 40 percent in Europe.

We are also No. 1 in medical advances and discoveries. For all these reasons and even more, I don't understand why Dr. Prasad and Dr. Emmanuel believe in government health rationing healthcare.

In 2023, I joined with my Republican colleagues expressing serious concern about the Biden administration's potential use of what is called quality-adjusted life years and other discriminatory metrics when it came to prescription drug programs.

Places like the United Kingdom use quality-adjusted life years to determine drug coverage. If the government decides a drug won't extend a person's life long enough, it will restrict access. Dr. Prasad has applauded the United Kingdom for restricting access to new treatment and said that quality-adjusted life years is ``a good way to judge drugs.''

The National Council on Disability disagrees with Dr. Prasad, stating that ``quality-adjusted life years place a lower value on treatments which extend the lives of people with chronic illnesses and disabilities.''

When the government gets to dictate which treatments patients can and cannot access, we devalue people living with rare diseases, we devalue older Americans, and we devalue individuals with disabilities.

The government should use every opportunity to promote a potential miracle cure or breakthrough treatment. The Food and Drug Administration should determine if a drug is safe and effective. However, it shouldn't limit access because a government bureaucrat believes the costs outweigh the benefits.

The United States is a world leader in innovation and care. Why should the government shy away from testing limits of new treatments and miracle cures? The answer is, we should not.

We wouldn't see headlines like these if we had a different approach. Time Magazine says: ``A Baby Receives the First Customized CRISPR Treatment.''

The New York Times says: ``From No Hope to a Potential Cure for a Deadly Blood Cancer.''

In recent years, I have had constituents sit in my office pleading for the government to remove redtape so that they can access potentially life-changing, life-extending treatments for Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig's disease, cancer, and other diseases.

I was proud to be a cosponsor in 2018 of the 2018 Right to Try law that President Trump advocated for and eventually signed. That law lets people with life-threatening conditions access unapproved treatments after they have tried all treatment options and are not eligible for clinical trials.

Dr. Prasad has said he is not in favor of the 2018 Right to Try law and that he ``favor[s] a strong regulatory state.'' He has long criticized the FDA for approving too many treatments that, in his view, provide only marginal benefits.

After he took the job at FDA, Dr. Prasad said:

We will take action at the first sign of promise for rare

diseases. We're not going to wait.

Given Dr. Prasad has left the FDA, we don't know if this was an empty promise. I hope that whoever takes on the role of FDA's Chief Medical and Scientific Officer and Director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research will support patients who face life-threatening illnesses, instead of using his or her power to restrict access to care, which, I think, is fairly certain we would presume that Dr. Prasad would do just the opposite.

The government shouldn't get to decide when its citizens are required to give up on their own life. This is true when a person turns 75 years old or when rare disease treatments may only extend a person's life by just a short period of time. If there is a cure or a treatment, you should be able to access it, regardless of what bureaucrats think.

Dr. Prasad is gone. It is good he is no longer on the government payroll. I don't know who decided to get rid of this person that shouldn't have been hired in the first place, but I want to thank them for doing that.

I yield the floor.

Only in Washington--only in Washington--can you let people take more than what is legally allowed under a government program and, at the same time, let them keep it. Last year, I shined a light with the Treasury inspector general that over 40 percent of excess marketplace subsidy payments totaling $10 and two-tenths billion, dating back to 2016, were not being recouped.

So why not recouped? Because of the current so-called safe harbor recapture rules. When ObamaCare was passed, it established so-called safe harbor recapture rules for the advanced premium tax credit, also known as a subsidy.

When an individual buys a health plan off of the Federal marketplace, the government subsidizes much of the cost through an advanced premium tax credit. The subsidy is based on a consumer's estimated income. At the end of the year, the consumer reconciles any differences in their subsidy amount based on their actual income compared to their previously projected income.

If a consumer gets more than what is permitted based on their income, they must return the excess amount unless they fall within the so- called safe harbor, which is based on income and excess amount, as a consumer could misestimate their annual income and not be required to pay back any excess subsidy or maybe just a small portion.

Until now, safe harbor rules permitted keeping up to $3,250 in excess. This policy actually rewarded fraud and wasted taxpayers' money. This is especially concerning since I have also found that insurance agents are also using targeted internet ads to fraudulently enroll consumers with false income.

Congress has tightened and simplified the safe harbor rules before. Senate Republicans, through the One Big Beautiful Bill, ended this legal theft for those over the poverty limits. This policy will save over $19 billion in the next 10 years. Senate Republicans

also established pre-enrollment verification requirements with flexibilities for special enrollment periods.

This will save over $40 billion. This is good news for the taxpayers but, particularly, fairness in this program.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, before I begin with my remarks, I would like to say my condolences and prayers are with the families of the New York police officers involved in last night's tragic shooting.

Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Senator from Nevada for coming to the floor to push for passage of these bipartisan bills that she has mentioned.

I also see that Senator Klobuchar is on the floor to seek like legislation that she has worked on in a bipartisan way to protect law enforcement and first responders, and I would also support her efforts.

Law enforcement across the country put their lives on the line every day. We see examples of the dangers they face on the news and in our communities on a daily basis.

This month, Immigration and Customs Enforcement reported an 830- percent increase in assaults on their officers and agents during the course of their enforcement duties. Agents and officers had rocks and other projectiles thrown at them, causing injury to person and property. These agents and officers have been doxed and had their home addresses, family members' names, and other personal information posted on social media for anyone to see, which has resulted in an increased number of threats and intimidation to these law enforcement personnel and their families.

We had the opportunity to hear firsthand from three Federal law enforcement officers during a Judiciary Committee hearing on cartels last month about the ongoing risk and dangers to law enforcement.

We had Special Agent in Charge Matthew Allen of the Los Angeles field office of the Drug Enforcement Administration testify that his agents are oftentimes surveilled by cartel members and other bad actors. He further testified that he has lost several friends and fellow law enforcement officers as a result of their law enforcement duties.

Just recently, we learned that an off-duty Customs and Border Protection officer was shot in the face in New York City during an attempted robbery by a previously deported illegal alien. Thankfully, the officer is expected to survive.

According to the Fraternal Order of Police, as of June 30 of this year, 166 officers were shot in the line of duty, and 21 of them lost their lives. While these numbers are lower than from previous years, the shooting this weekend is yet another example of the threats and dangers our men and women in blue face every day, both on and off duty.

Earlier this year, Senator Durbin, who is also on the floor with us-- he is the ranking member of the committee I chair--he and I led a resolution honoring 234 officers who made the ultimate sacrifice and are being recognized as line-of-duty deaths. It passed with over 80 cosponsors.

We worked together across the aisle to report these bills that are being discussed here on the floor of the Senate. Those bills were voted out of committee in what we honor as Police Week in the United States. The seven bills are part of the largest Police Week package in over 15 years. The package of seven bills passed the committee with bipartisan support and also by unanimous vote. They provide a good example of the extensive problems facing our law enforcement community. For example, one bill deals with recruitment and retention issues to ensure our law enforcement is well staffed. Other bills deal with protecting law enforcement from the dangers of fentanyl and providing law enforcement with the equipment they need to serve our communities.

Lastly, the bills provide protection to the families of first responders and provide the much needed resources for the mental health of law enforcement.

Mr. President, I would yield back to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. President, soon the Senate will proceed to a final vote on the nomination of Emil Bove; that is to be judge on the Third Circuit.

As I said in my statement in the Judiciary Committee multiple times, I support the nomination of Mr. Bove. He has a strong legal background and has served his country honorably.

I believe he will be diligent, capable, and a fair jurist. My Republican colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee agree, and that is why he was reported out of committee with every Republican supporting his nomination.

It is no surprise to anyone who follows this nomination that I have serious concerns with how my Democratic colleagues have conducted themselves.

The vicious rhetoric, unfair accusations, and abuse directed at Mr. Bove by some on this committee have crossed the line.

I wish I could say that this posture has been limited to just this nomination, but unfortunately it appears to be a pattern. Since the very beginning of this Congress, Democrats have engaged in obstruction campaigns for nearly every one of President Trump's nominees.

Their playbook has included maximum procedural obstruction, unfair media attacks, repeated attempts to allege misconduct, and demands for delayed consideration, records, and investigations. This Congress alone, Democrats have sent at least 26 letters to 17 agencies or parties demanding records, delays, or investigations into President Trump's nominees, just in the Judiciary Committee. Like clockwork, just before a hearing or a vote, we get another breathless accusation that one of President Trump's nominees needs to be--you guessed it-- investigated. I am afraid that what we have seen recently on the Bove nomination has been more of the same.

My Democratic colleagues have tried to weaponize my respect for whistleblowers and the whole whistleblowing process against me and, in turn, against Mr. Bove. Now I am here to set the record straight.

I take whistleblower complaints very seriously. During both Republican and Democratic administrations, I have spent over four decades defending patriotic whistleblowers. My conduct in defending whistleblowers and running bipartisan investigations stands in stark contrast to the conduct of my Democratic colleagues.

During the first Trump administration, I defended the Ukraine whistleblower's use of the whistleblower process even despite serious concerns about the substance of his complaint. When I was last chairman, I interviewed Donald Trump, Jr., and other Republicans as part of my bipartisan investigation into the alleged Russian collusion, and that was conducted through the Senate Judiciary Committee.

But when it came to the Biden family and the Biden administration, despite serious allegations and overwhelming evidence of misconduct, Democrats made no effort to investigate or conduct similar interviews like I did during a Republican administration. In fact, they worked hard to thwart any attempt at oversight. Now, these weren't fringe claims; they involved potential crimes squarely within the Judiciary Committee jurisdiction.

The Trump administration has said that Mr. Reuveni isn't a whistleblower. Now, I publicly disagreed with the position of the Trump administration. Now, that happens to be the opposite posture that my Democratic colleagues took with the IRS whistleblowers who blew the whistle on the Biden administration. My Democratic colleagues tried to destroy those whistleblowers and use the press to falsely claim that they were not, in fact, whistleblowers.

No one can say that I don't take whistleblower complaints seriously or that I don't investigate allegations in good faith. I have always said my door is open to whistleblowers, and my efforts regarding the Bove nomination show that this is true.

Mr. Reuveni made allegations against Mr. Bove--can you believe this?--just the morning before the nomination hearing. The allegations broke in a New York Times story, and the paper, as you would expect, gleefully ran the unvetted accusations without so much as giving the Justice Department or even the nominee the opportunity to respond.

At our Bove hearing in the Judiciary Committee, the Deputy Attorney General flatly denied the allegations in public statements, and the nominee denied them under oath both in the hearing and in response to written questions from members of the Judiciary Committee.

Then my Democratic colleagues received yet additional records from the whistleblower on July 1 and July 7 but hid them from Republicans. I didn't receive these accusations and records until July 10. Now--can you believe it?--that is the very same day that Mr. Bove's nomination was scheduled for its first markup.

The coordinated media strategy--let me repeat that. That is so important--how the media works in line with what the Democrats want to accomplish on this nomination. The coordinated media strategy involved a New York Times exclusive about the files and a Democratic press release containing a misleading summary of the documents. Why? All designed to smear Mr. Bove.

This timeline raises serious concerns, and it is legitimate to raise them as a major problem.

If my Democratic colleagues wanted to investigate allegations, they should have come to this Senator, and we could have vetted the allegations in good faith together. They didn't want this; they wanted to run a one-sided media campaign.

Regardless, I still did my job and investigated. My staff reviewed the disclosure document by document and analyzed the facts. The result: Almost none of the material referenced Mr. Bove at all. More concerningly, the Democrats' summary grossly mischaracterized the documents that it purported to summarize. In short, the documents didn't say what the Democrats say the documents said.

My staff also interviewed multiple people who were present for the March 14 meeting described in the whistleblower disclosure. Four separate people other than Mr. Bove who were present at the meeting told us the following: First, there was never any directive to ignore a court order, and secondly, each of them left the meeting with the understanding that the Justice Department would aggressively litigate but would follow court orders.

My staff then spoke to numerous other individuals, including many current and former Justice Department employees who wanted to share information about the Bove nomination. All told, my staff interviewed or spoke with more than a dozen individuals who came forward to discuss the Bove nomination.

With respect to the initial whistleblower allegations, even if you accept most of the claims as true, there is still no scandal. Government lawyers aggressively litigating and interpreting court orders isn't misconduct; that is common sense. That is not misconduct because that is what lawyers always do.

Concerningly, the minority repeatedly recast discussion of litigation strategy as wrongdoing, even discussions that reflected the government's official litigation positions, some positions which prevailed on appeal.

Now, pay attention to what--the whistleblower alleged misconduct, but 10 days after the key event he describes, he signed a brief stating, without qualification, that ``the government has complied with the Court's orders in this case.'' Now, this is the very same person that you have been reading about in the media that said that Bove was telling everybody not to follow court orders. Ten days after the key event he described, that person said this:

The government has complied with the Court's orders in this

case.

If he believed the Department defied court orders, why sign a brief as an officer of the court saying that it had complied?

During the hearing, Mr. Bove firmly denied the allegations. He testified under oath:

I did not advise any Justice Department attorney to violate

court orders.

Recent public reporting backs his account. Months before the whistleblower came forward, his former supervisor wrote in a letter to Mr. Bove:

[A]dvised our team that we must avoid a court order halting

an upcoming operation to implement the Act at all costs.

This statement confirms Mr. Bove advised his team to avoid triggering a court order, not defy a court order, and that is consistent with Bove's testimony before the committee.

Now, everything I gave you up to now was the initial allegation, but now, on the very eve of Mr. Bove's final vote here in the U.S. Senate, the Democrats and their media allies have launched yet another salvo against Mr. Bove. On Friday--in other words, 3 days ago, maybe 4 days ago; you count it--we learned from social media that two other whistleblowers allegedly have derogatory information about Mr. Bove. One whistleblower said that they have filed a complaint with the inspector general. My staff requested the complaint and to speak with the whistleblower. Their requests were denied.

Another group, a group called Justice Connection, publicly alleged that a whistleblower has evidence that Bove wasn't truthful in his hearings and that ``the whistleblower has tried to share [this] info[rmation] with Republican Senators for weeks and they [haven't responded].''

To the extent that anyone is suggesting that this Senator Grassley hasn't been willing to receive and consider relative evidence, everybody that knows me would know that is just plain false.

I am the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and I represent Republicans on this committee. Regarding this whistleblower, my office was not proactively approached.

Indeed, since we saw these news reports on Friday, my staff proactively and repeatedly reached out to whistleblower lawyers asking to see the evidence that they apparently had already shared with multiple Democrats and also with the media.

My staff assured them that we would review the evidence in good faith. But now, here, all weekend--I want to repeat, all weekend--my staff was stonewalled and given the runaround. Any assertion that I or my staff was uninterested in the evidence is entirely false.

It wasn't until Monday morning--so you got Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday morning--that my staff received any information. Even then, it was bits and pieces of information created by lawyers, not original information.

My staff tried over and over to get all the information, only to be rejected. My staff was not shown the underlying transcript of the meeting until this morning. They were shown what was represented to be verbatim transcript of a meeting, but we still didn't have access to the underlying source.

So what did I do? I followed my usual process. I asked Mr. Bove to respond to the allegations that his testimony was inconsistent with the evidence that we saw for the first time Monday.

And he sent me a letter doing just that. I plan to make that letter public.

I have also asked permission to make this transcript public as well, but I don't know whether the lawyer will give me that permission.

In his letter, Mr. Bove flatly denies the allegations that he misled the committee. He explained that he testified truthfully in response to ``compound yes or no questions that sought to attribute words to me that I did not use during the February 14, 2025, video meeting.''

He also responds to the attacks on his character and rejects the allegations against him.

Viewed in light of the transcript, Bove's responses to compound hostile questions about specific words used in a meeting that happened months before his hearing do not, to me, indicate deliberately false and misleading testimony.

And, more importantly, the substance of the meeting itself does not reflect misconduct. It reflected a sympathetic tone during a turbulent time and appropriately characterizes the role of a Justice Department attorney.

In the meeting, Mr. Bove specifically acknowledged that being a Justice Department attorney means ``following orders from the President or [from] the Attorney General, unless we view them as unlawful or unethical.''

He apologized to the attorneys present for tension and told them:

I don't want to put pressure on you.

I am also curious at my Democrat colleagues' newfound interest in candor to the committee. During the Biden administration, Kristen Clarke unequivocally perjured herself before the Judiciary Committee in response to written questions.

When the information came to light after her confirmation, Democrats do what Democrats do: They closed ranks and refused to join Republicans in their call to hold her accountable.

Democrats likewise expressed no interest in evaluating the misleading and inconsistent testimony from numerous other Biden appointees.

When this committee considered the nomination of Justice Kavanaugh-- now on the Supreme Court--I criticized the tactics that Democrats employed, and I said this:

The Ranking Member sat on these allegations for nearly

seven weeks, only to reveal them at the eleventh hour when it

appeared that Judge Kavanaugh was headed toward nomination.

Now getting back to the Bove nomination, with respect to it, as with other nominees this Congress, Democrats appeared to have dusted off the playbook that they devised against Justice Kavanaugh.

They hid allegedly relevant information until a politically opportune time and then used it as an ambush to hurt the nominee. As I said about the Democrats' conduct during director--FBI Director Patel's nomination:

This is becoming a pattern, and I will not facilitate a

campaign to undermine the results of the election by delaying

consideration of nominees.

If anyone, including my colleagues, has information regarding a nominee--any nominee--that they believe is relevant to their fitness for office, I expect them to share it with me in a timely and candid manner so that the allegations can be fairly vetted, as opposed to what I have just told you: that we got most of this information from the Democrats that the whistleblowers were--the Democrats were peddling the whistleblowers' accusations the morning before the hearing, the morning before we were considering the nomination.

Everybody should know that my door is always open to whistleblowers. And while I may not always agree with someone else's conclusions, I will always fairly consider any information brought to my office.

My message to the three whistleblowers in this case is this: Just because I may disagree with the conclusions in a whistleblower disclosure, it doesn't mean that I don't support whistleblowers' rights to come forward. Whether I agree or disagree with whistleblowers, I will defend whistleblowers' rights.

Reasonable minds can differ, and when I direct my staff to allocate resources away from other ongoing whistleblower projects to handle situations like Bove, their efforts ought to be respected and given good faith treatment.

But contrary to what happened, this eleventh-hour media smear by my colleagues based on information that was hidden from the committee, these are all unacceptable, and I won't stand for it as a delay or obstruction tactic. This tactic didn't work against Justice Kavanaugh, and it won't work against Mr. Bove.

Mr. President, I look forward to supporting Mr. Bove and urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Congress, 3 weeks ago, passed the One Big Beautiful Bill, and in that bill was a modest, cost-sharing requirement for able-bodied Medicaid expansion of adults that were making more than 100 percent of poverty.

The cost-sharing requirements would not apply to primary, prenatal, pediatric, mental, substance abuse disorder, emergency room care, or care provided by community health centers, certified behavioral health clinics, or rural health clinics.

Now, under the One Big Beautiful Bill, this cost sharing that is required for able-bodied Medicaid adults can't exceed $35 per visit, and there is an annual maximum limit of no more than 5 percent of an individual's income.

Well, you might ask: Why cost sharing? Having a modest cost sharing ensures consumers have skin in the game and thus, in turn, be responsible healthcare consumers.

Adults in Medicare earning between 100 and 133 percent of poverty are most likely to gain health insurance through the Federal marketplace or through an employer, where cost sharing is common. Despite fearmongering about cost-share requirements, establishing modest cost- sharing requirements in Medicaid is not anything brandnew. It has been around for quite a while.

So let me give you a little bit of history. The Obama administration approved a half dozen Medicaid waivers, including my home State of Iowa, to establish modest cost sharing for able-bodied Medicaid adults.

Congress, in addition, has enabled cost sharing before. Obama made that move. In the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act, which included my Family Opportunity Act, we expanded State flexibility in Medicaid to let States establish cost sharing up to 10 percent of the cost of services for those making over the poverty limit.

The law also lets hospitals impose cost sharing for nonemergency services provided in the emergency department. The cost-sharing policies had support from the Governors of both parties, from a National Governors Association working group. At a 2005 Finance Committee hearing that I chaired, Governors said modest Medicaid sharing ``[utilizes] market forces and personal responsibility to improve health care delivery.''

Another example is in the 1990s, Congress enabled cost sharing in the Children's Health Insurance Program. To this day, States are allowed and do impose cost sharing in that program. Even socialist proposals like Medicare for All have also included cost sharing.

So I want to make very clear: This is nothing new. Modest cost sharing is a commonsense policy for those benefitting from a government program and who have the means to pay for it.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, every year, we get what is called Medicare's ``Trustees Report.'' I come to the floor to comment on that.

We all know that Medicare is very much a part of America's social fabric. For decades, Medicare has provided seniors and people with disabilities access to routine and lifesaving care at their local hospital, doctor's office, and pharmacy.

The trustees reported, as they do every year, that the Medicare Part A Hospital Insurance Trust Fund is expected to be depleted by 2033. This is 3 years ahead of the projections that came out in last year's report.

This results from higher than expected expenditures, the growth in inpatient hospital and hospice spending.

Also, for now, the eighth year in a row, the Trustees have issued what they call a funding warning. This is because Medicare's outlays for its two trust funds are expected to exceed its dedicated revenue by 45 percent.

When Congress established this combined funding warning report in the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, we intended--here in the Senate--for Congress and the President to respond with solutions.

We should listen to this actuarial report, get on the job, and do something to preserve the Medicare program. Now, we all know that we talk more often about Social Security running out of money.

I want to preserve and strengthen the Medicare program for future generations, just like I would say the same thing about the Social Security program. The only way to make these critical programs sustainable is to follow the Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill model.

This goes back to 1983, when the Social Security system was running out of money. Ronald Reagan--a Republican--Tip O'Neill, Speaker of the House--a Democrat--got together and said: We can't let that happen.

And they made sure it didn't happen. And what they devised that I had a chance to vote for in 1983 or 1984--whenever it was--they fixed it for 50 years because that is 50 years coming to 2033 when Social Security, likewise, will run out of money.

Now, I have come to the conclusion that when you have a President Biden and a Candidate Trump both running in 2024, that they aren't going to do anything to fix Social Security.

Why isn't it being done? I have come to the conclusion that it is not being done because we don't have any Ronald Reagans or Tip O'Neills in Washington, DC, or in our government anymore.

So they did it in a bipartisan way, and Congress should step up the same way to deal with this Medicare issue that I am talking about. But there is no reason to leave Social Security out of that debate as well.

So I get back to some role that I played in the Medicare issues of 2003 when I led the effort to modernize Medicare by establishing the prescription drug program, because prior to

2003--since 1965--Medicare never covered prescription drugs. So since 2003, we have had a prescription drug program under Medicare.

In the first decade of the Medicare Part D program, the Federal Government spent--can you believe it--36 percent less than what was projected to be spent as we wrote this legislation. And it also improved access to prescription drugs for millions of seniors.

Separately, Senate Republicans, through the One Big Beautiful Bill, strengthened Medicare. We did that by ensuring that Medicare resources are going to Americans instead of illegal immigrants and those not here permanently.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that we will save the Medicare system $5 billion. Now, that is a spit in the ocean compared to what we face with this 45-percent overrun that the trustees talked about.

A step in the right direction, of course it is, but it is no substitute for what is really needed in this town--a bipartisan cooperation and Presidential leadership, either Republican or Democrat, that is needed to address our long-term Medicare funding challenges.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I want to thank Senator Durbin for his leadership in this area the two or three times we have attempted to do this. One time, I think we were successful, but it is still not law.

I would like to put this in the simplest form I can by saying that watching television all the time, prices are showing up all the time for this product or that product. I don't know how many times I see that something costs $9.99 or $19.99 or that the price of an automobile is $26,000. But when it comes to prescription drugs, presumably there is something very sensitive about this that they don't want to tell us what it is going to cost. Of course that irritates me, but most importantly, it is not fair to the consumer.

Today, we have a President, we have a Vice President, and we have a Secretary of Health and Human Services all on record supporting this commonsense measure to require prescription drug ads to list the price of a drug. In fact, I discussed this with the HHS Secretary prior to his confirmation, and he told me he thought it could be done by regulation. It is my understanding they are studying doing it by regulation, and I would say hurry up and get it done because whether it is done by law or whether it is done by regulation, this is something that should be done.

I want to say that I think my colleagues know that lowering the cost of prescription drugs is a top priority of mine--no more than it is Senator Durbin's. Without their prescription medication, millions of Americans would not survive.

As a nation, we are blessed to live in a country where investment and innovation unlock cures and treatments--some of them we even refer to as miracle cures. But the escalating prices of prescription drugs are a consuming concern for millions of Americans, including in my State of Iowa, where they bring up this very subject regularly at my county meetings.

There are many reasons for the high cost of prescription drugs. It could be the lack of competition and abusive practices. It could be opaque and powerful drug middlemen that we call pharmacy benefit managers and a lack of transparency on prices.

By the way, I just mentioned PBMs. There are at least 65 to 70 Senators that are cosponsors of 1 or more bills--at least 3 bills that exist out of 3 different committees--that want more transparency with PBMs, and somehow, we ought to be able to get that up. Hopefully, we will be successful before this year is out.

So I am working in all three of these areas I just told you about to advance bipartisan solutions. When voluntarily choosing to promote medications over the airways, manufacturers are already required to disclose safety and side effects. Yet, for many patients, price plays a primary role in clinical adherence.

There is a lot of value in knowing a prescription drug's list price. This is the most accessible and standardized price of a drug, which is set by the manufacturer itself.

Despite efforts by Big Pharma to stop our bill, I am confident that the American consumer will continue to demand the kind of price transparency that they deserve. President Trump, Vice President Vance, and Secretary Kennedy will also continue to fight with us.

If critics have solutions to make our bill better, come to the table, present your ideas, and work with us.

Also, I want to thank the chairman of the Finance Committee. He is a friend. He may be against this bill today, but he is very much an advocate for PBM reforms.

I thank you, Senator, for doing that.

The Finance Committee, along with several other committees in the Senate, has a bipartisan PBM reform ready to pass the Senate.

The President made it clear that he wants to see PBM transparency and accountability, and we must tackle the cost of prescription drugs through more competition, PBM reform, and, of course, through the sunshine on drug prices that Senator Durbin and I are proposing.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on July the Fourth, President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The centerpiece of this legislation is a permanent extension of the 2017 tax law, thereby averting the largest tax hike in American history without a vote of Congress.

In addition to this, the bill rolls back the Biden administration's Green New Deal. This includes pairing back supercharged green subsidies enacted by my Democrat colleagues as part of the so-called Inflation Reduction Act.

I have long been a strong proponent of developing alternative energy resources as part of an all the above energy strategy.

I am proud to be the original author of the wind production tax credit. When Congress enacted that credit in 1993, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of U.S. electricity production came from wind. Today, it is over 10 percent. And in my home State of Iowa, it is over 60 percent. Wind development has been an unquestionable success.

My view has always been that tax incentives intended to spur fledgling industries shouldn't last longer than necessary. That is why in 2015 I worked with both the wind and solar industries to phase out their credits over a period of years. Unfortunately, the Democrats so- called Inflation Reduction Act reversed course and supercharged these credits once more.

As part of the One Big Beautiful Bill, much like I did in 2015, I worked with my colleagues to provide wind and solar an appropriate glidepath for the orderly phase-out of the tax credits.

Many of my colleagues advocated pulling the rug out from wind and solar projects, but I worked to find a sensible compromise. Based on that compromise, the law's December 31, 2027, placed-in-service requirement for wind and solar facilities is only effective for ``facilities the construction of which begins after the date which is 12 months after the date of enactment.''

This change is intended to grant the wind and solar industries a yearlong transition to confidently move forward with planned projects under the existing continuity safe harbor and the beginning of construction guidance in effect at the time of the law's enactment.

The statute expressly codifies what it means to ``begin construction.'' Congress consciously elected to set the provisions effective date by reference to ``beginning of construction'' because of its long- and well-established meaning at the time of enactment. Treasury guidance with respect to when construction begins, along with its continuity safe harbor, goes back more than a decade.

It is simply common sense for Congress to look to a well-understood and long-established term in establishing such a transition period. After all, the purpose of a transition period is to allow industry time to adjust to new rules and requirements and avoid market disruptions.

As the Department of the Treasury works to implement the One Big Beautiful Bill, I urge agency officials to do so in accordance with the statute as written and consistent with congressional intent.

Mr. President, I would like to recognize an Iowa teacher who this very week is making the last trip of her almost 40- year teaching career bringing students to Washington, DC.

Becky Koenig has been an exceptional educator, coach, and mentor, as well as being very beloved by her students. Becky has made a lasting impact on students and their families in the communities of Sumner, IA; Forest City, IA; Lake Park, IA; and Spencer, IA.

Becky's contributions to the lives of so many Iowans will be remembered and felt long after her well-deserved retirement.

Outside of school hours, Becky has devoted 38 years to coaching speech. In fact, she has played a very major role in a remarkable Iowa record. The large-group speech program at Spencer has been able to send at least one group to the Iowa All-State Festival every single year of the competition's 50-year existence.

Although Becky will leave the classroom behind, the deep connections she has built with her students will leave a lasting legacy in each of their lives.

Through her passion and energy, she has shaped the minds of many students. Iowa has been lucky to have an educator like Becky.

Most of us remember at least one teacher that inspired us to get where we are today. Becky has been that teacher for countless Iowa students.

I am pleased to join her fellow teachers, students, and all Iowans to say thank you to Becky Koenig for her exceptional career.

We wish you all the very best in retirement, and, of course, we thank you for your service.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to tell my colleagues and the public about a part of the Big Beautiful Bill that passed 2 weeks ago that isn't getting much attention.

I have been a longtime supporter of health savings accounts. They encourage responsible utilization of healthcare services by offering lower cost insurance and greater flexibility of care.

I am proud to have led the charge in the early 2000s to make health savings accounts accessible and a stronger option for Americans.

Today--would you believe it--over 30 million Americans have a health savings account with an average balance of more than $3,000.

Senate Republicans, through the One Big Beautiful Bill, went a step further, strengthening health savings accounts. First, the bill allowed health savings accounts to work with direct primary care service arrangements.

Direct primary care is a membership-based model of care that lets patients choose a primary care provider of their choice and gain access to a suite of care options without needing to go through an insurance company's redtape.

Doctors and providers, under this way, also benefit since they can spend more time with the patient rather than completing unnecessary paperwork. When patients have access to timely and high-quality primary care, they have better health outcomes and live longer.

Prior to the law change, there were rules preventing consumers from contributing to and using health savings accounts for direct primary care. Direct primary care will also improve rural healthcare by expanding access to physicians and other healthcare providers and also expanding access to telehealth to reach patients in a more timely fashion.

We also allow individuals who have purchased a catastrophic or bronze health plan on the Federal marketplace to now contribute to and use a health savings account.

In addition, this will improve access and competition on the Federal marketplace, and that, we all know, is sorely needed.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the One Big Beautiful Bill provides a much needed boost to Main Street America and to the rural communities all throughout America. It makes key business provisions from the 2017 tax law permanent to provide job creators the certainty that they need to plan and invest in their operations.

A top priority of mine, the 20 percent small business deduction, is made permanent to benefit Main Street business owners and family farmers alike. Just as importantly, the bill permanently restores full expensing for machinery and equipment to boost domestic production.

All of this, combined with a permanent extension of the across-the- board lower tax rates, and the One Big Beautiful Bill is a recipe for economic success.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.