[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 68 (Wednesday, May 15, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3508-S3516]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Perez Nomination
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, at this time I would like to discuss the
President's nominee for Secretary of Labor, Tom Perez.
Mr. Perez is not unknown to the Senate or even to the country as a
whole now that he has been Assistant Attorney General for a long time.
His tenure at the Civil Rights Commission has been marked with
controversy, and that is putting it mildly. He was confirmed to his
current post as Civil Rights Division Assistant Attorney General by a
vote of 72 to 22. I was among those who supported his nomination to
lead the Civil Rights Division, but unfortunately, based on reasons I
will outline, I have come to regret that vote.
There are a number of issues regarding Mr. Perez's record that should
give my colleagues pause. Today I wish to focus on the investigation I
have been conducting with my colleague in the House Mr. Issa, chairman
of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, as well as Mr.
Goodlatte, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
I would like to share with my colleagues the role Mr. Perez played in
the quid pro quo between the City of St. Paul, MN, and the Department
of Justice here in Washington where the Department agreed not to join
two False Claims Act cases in exchange for the City of St. Paul
withdrawing its case from the Supreme Court in a case called Magner v.
Gallagher. Mr. Perez's actions in this case are extremely troubling for
a number of reasons. In other words, if an individual takes
extraordinary action to get a city to withdraw a case that is already
on the docket of the Supreme Court, that is pretty serious
intervention.
First and foremost, at this point no one disputes the fact that Mr.
Perez orchestrated the entire arrangement. He manipulated the Supreme
Court docket so that his favored legal theory, called the disparate
impact theory, would evade review by the High Court. In the process,
Mr. Perez left a whistleblower twisting in the wind. Those are the
facts, and even Mr. Perez doesn't dispute those facts.
The fact that Mr. Perez struck a deal that potentially squandered up
to $200 million from taxpayers in order to preserve the disparate
impact theory is, of course, extremely troubling in and of itself. In
addition to the underlying quid pro quo, however, the evidence
uncovered in our investigation revealed that Mr. Perez sought to cover
up the fact that the exchange even took place.
Finally--and let me emphasize that this should concern all of my
colleagues--when Mr. Perez testified under oath about this case both to
congressional investigators and during his confirmation hearing, Mr.
Perez told a different story.
The simple but unavoidable conclusion is that the story Mr. Perez
told is simply not supported by the evidence, so I will start by
reviewing the underlying quid pro quo.
In the fall of 2011, the Department of Justice was poised to join a
False Claims Act lawsuit against the city of St. Paul. The career
lawyers--when I use the words ``career lawyers,'' I mean these folks
who are not political appointees. The career lawyers in the U.S.
attorney's office of Minnesota were recommending the Department of
Justice join this false claims case. The career lawyers, even in the
civil division at main Justice, were recommending that Justice join the
case. The career lawyers in the Department of Housing and Urban
Development were also recommending the Department of Justice join in
this false claims case. Why is that important? Because the government
participating in a false claims case makes it a much stronger case than
when the individual pursues it by themselves.
What I just described to my colleagues was all before Mr. Perez got
involved. At about the same time the Supreme Court agreed to hear a
case called Magner v. Gallagher. In Magner, the City of St. Paul was
challenging the use of the ``disparate impact'' theory under the FAIR
Housing Act. The disparate impact theory is a mechanism Mr. Perez and
the civil rights division have been using in lawsuits against banks for
their lending practices. If that theory were undermined by the Supreme
Court, it would likely spell trouble for Mr. Perez's lawsuits against
the banks.
So Mr. Perez approached the lawyers handling the Magner case and he
cut a deal. The Department of Justice agreed not to join two false
claims cases in exchange for the City of St. Paul withdrawing Magner
from the Supreme Court. In early February 2012, Mr. Perez even flew to
St. Paul to finalize the deal. The next week the Department of Justice
declined the first false claims case, called the Newell case. The next
day, the City of St. Paul withdrew the Magner case from the Supreme
Court.
Now, there are a couple of aspects about this deal I wish to
emphasize. First, as I mentioned, the evidence makes clear Mr. Perez
took steps to cover up the fact that he had bartered away the false
claims cases. Cover-ups aren't good in government. On January 10, 2012,
Mr. Perez called the line attorney in the U.S. attorney's office
regarding the declination memo in the Newell case. To remind my
colleagues, Newell was the case the same career attorneys were strongly
recommending the United States join before Mr. Perez got involved. By
the time of this phone call in January 2012, Mr. Perez was well on his
way toward orchestrating this quid pro quo I have described.
Mr. Perez then called the line attorney, Mr. Greg Brooker, and
instructed him not to discuss the Magner case in the memo he prepared
outlining the reasons for the decision not to join that false claims
case. Here is what he said. This is a quote:
Hey, Greg. This is Tom Perez calling you--excuse me,
calling you at 9 o'clock on Tuesday. I got your message. The
main thing I wanted to ask you, I spoke to some folks in the
Civil Division yesterday and wanted to make sure that the
declination memo that you sent to the Civil Division--and I
am sure it probably already does this--but it doesn't make
any mention of the Magner case. It is just a memo on the
merits of the two cases that are under review in the qui tam
context.
[[Page S3513]]
End of that voicemail.
Approximately 1 hour later, Mr. Perez sent Mr. Brooker a follow-up e-
mail, writing:
I left you a detailed voice message. Call me if you can
after you have a chance to review [the] voice mail.
Several hours later Mr. Perez sent another follow-up e-mail, writing:
Were you able to listen to my message?
Mr. Perez's voice mail was quite clear and obvious. He told Mr.
Brooker:
Make sure that the declination memo . . . doesn't make any
mention of the Magner case. It is just a memo on the merits
of the two cases.
What could be more clear than that?
In fact, Mr. Perez himself sent an e-mail less than an hour later
explaining that he had left a detailed voice mail for Mr. Brooker. Yet
when congressional investigators asked Mr. Perez why he left a voice
mail, he told an entirely different story. Here is what he told the
investigators:
What I meant to communicate was, it is time to bring this
to closure, and if the only issue that is standing in the way
is how you talk about Magner, then don't talk about it.
Well, I hope my colleagues are listening and they say to themselves:
Give me a break. This is plainly not what he said in his voice mail.
Mr. Perez, I was born at night, but I wasn't born last night. He didn't
say anything about being concerned with the delay. He said:
Make sure you don't mention Magner. It is just a memo on
the merits.
His intent was crystal clear.
Mr. Perez also testified Mr. Brooker called him back the next day and
refused to omit the discussion of the Magner case that was being
withdrawn from the Supreme Court. According to Mr. Perez, he told Mr.
Brooker during this call to ``follow the normal process.''
But, again, this story is not supported by the evidence.
One month later, after Mr. Perez flew to Minneapolis to personally
seal the deal with the city, a line attorney in the civil division e-
mailed his superior to outline ``additional facts'' about the deal.
Point 6 read:
USA-MN--
U.S. Attorney Minnesota. That is abbreviated here.
U.S. Attorney Minnesota considers it non-negotiable that
its office will include a discussion of the Supreme Court
case and the policy issues in its declination memo.
If Mr. Perez's story were true and the issue was resolved on January
11, then why, 1 month later, would the U.S. attorney's office need to
emphatically state it would not hide the fact that the exchange took
place? Thank God for honest line attorneys, career attorneys.
As I mentioned, Mr. Perez flew to Minneapolis to finalize the deal on
February 3, and one would think a deal of this magnitude would be
memorialized in a detailed written agreement. After all, you can't even
rent a car without signing a detailed agreement. But was this agreement
written? No, it wasn't.
After Mr. Perez finalized the deal, the career attorney asked if
there was going to be a written agreement. What was Mr. Perez's
response? He said:
No, just oral discussions; word was your bond.
Once again, the people listening to this are saying to themselves:
Can you believe that? Here is Mr. Perez. He has just orchestrated a
deal where the United States declined to join a case worth up to $200
million to the Federal Treasury in exchange for the City of St. Paul
withdrawing a case from the Supreme Court. And when the career lawyers
asked if this deal will be written down, he says, No. Your word was
your bond.
As everyone knows, the reason we make arrangements such as this in
writing is so there is no disagreement down the road about what the
parties agreed to. As it turns out, there was, in fact, a disagreement
about the terms of this unwritten deal. The lawyer for the City of St.
Paul, Mr. Lillehaug, told congressional investigators on January 9,
approximately 1 month before the deal was finalized, Mr. Perez assured
him that ``HUD would be helpful'' if the Newell case proceeded after
the Department of Justice declined to intervene. Mr. Lillehaug also
told investigators that on February 4, the day after they finalized the
deal, Mr. Perez told him HUD had begun assembling information to assist
the city in a motion to dismiss the Newell complaint on ``original
source'' grounds. But, according to Mr. Lillehaug, this assistance
disappeared after the lawyers in the civil division learned about it.
Let me tell my colleagues the significance of that. Mr. Perez
represents the United States. Mr. Newell is bringing a case on behalf
of the United States. Mr. Perez is talking to lawyers on the other side
and he tells them, after the United States declines to join the case we
will give you information to help you defeat Mr. Newell, who is
bringing the case on behalf of the United States. Mr. Newell, the
whistleblower, was left hanging out to dry by Mr. Perez. In effect, Mr.
Perez is offering, in that statement, to give the other side
information to help defeat his own client.
I recognize this is a significant allegation, and Mr. Perez was asked
about it under oath. His response? Mr. Perez said:
No, I don't recall ever suggesting that.
So on the one hand is Mr. Lillehaug, who says Mr. Perez made this
offer first in January and then again on February 4, but the assistance
disappeared after the lawyers in the civil division caught wind of it.
On the other hand is Mr. Perez, who testified under oath: I don't
recall ever having made that offer. Who should we believe? Well, the
documents support Mr. Lillehaug's version of events.
On February 7, a line attorney sent an e-mail to the director of the
civil fraud section and related a conversation the assistant U.S.
attorney in Minnesota had with Mr. Lillehaug. According to Mr.
Lillehaug, the line attorney wrote that there were two additional items
that were part of the ``deal that is not a deal'' and one of those two
items was this:
HUD will provide material to the City in support of their
motion to dismiss the original source grounds.
Internal e-mails show that when the career lawyers learned of this
promise, they strongly disagreed with it and they conveyed their
concerns to Tony West, head of the civil division. During his
transcribed interview, Mr. West testified that it would have been
inappropriate to provide this material outside of the normal discovery
channels. Mr. West said:
I just know that wasn't going to happen and it didn't
happen.
In other words, this is simple: When lawyers at the civil division
learned of this offer, they shut down that offer. So, the documentary
evidence shows the events transpired exactly as Mr. Lillehaug said they
did. Mr. Perez offered to provide the other side with information that
would help them defeat the whistleblower, Mr. Newell, in his case, and
that case was on behalf of the United States and the taxpayers, and
possibly $200 million. Well, I imagine this is simply stunning, the
lack of common sense exhibited, when the American taxpayers hear about
this.
Mr. Perez represents the United States. Any lawyer would tell you it
is highly inappropriate to offer to help the other side defeat their
own client.
This brings me to my final couple points I want to highlight for my
colleagues.
Even though the Department traded away Mr. Newell's case, Mr. Perez
has defended his decision, in part, by claiming that Mr. Newell still
had his ``day in court.'' What Mr. Perez omits from his story is that
Mr. Newell's case was dismissed precisely because the United States was
no longer a party to it.
After the United States declined to join the case, the judge
dismissed Mr. Newell's case based upon the legal language ``public
disclosure bar,'' finding he was not, again, the ``original source'' of
the information to the government. I want to remind my colleagues that
we recently amended the False Claims Act precisely to prevent an
outcome like this. Specifically, that amendment made clear that the
Justice Department can contest the ``original source'' dismissal even
if it fails to intervene, as it did in this case.
So the Department did not merely decline to intervene, which is bad
enough, but, in fact, it affirmatively chose to leave Mr. Newell all
alone in this case that Mr. Newell filed for the benefit of the United
States. Of course, that is the whole point. That is why it was so
important for the City of St.
[[Page S3514]]
Paul to make sure the United States did not join the case. That is why
the city was willing to trade away a strong case before the Supreme
Court. The city knew that if the United States joined the action, the
case would almost certainly go forward. Conversely, the city knew that
if the United States did not join the case and chose not to contest the
original source, it would likely get dismissed.
Think about that--$200 million possibly down the drain. The
Department trades away a case worth millions of taxpayer dollars. They
did it precisely because of the impact the decision would have on the
litigation. They knew that as a result of their decision, the
whistleblower would get dismissed based upon ``original source''
grounds, since they did not contest it. And not only that, Mr. Perez
went so far as to offer to provide documents to the other side that
would help them defeat Mr. Newell in his case on behalf of Mr. Perez's
client. Again, that client was the United States. Yet, when the
Congress starts asking questions, they have the guts to say: We didn't
do anything improper because Mr. Newell still had his day in court.
Well, the problem with that is that they cut the limbs out from under
him.
This brings me to my last point, and that has to do with the strength
of the case. Throughout our investigation, the Department has tried to
defend Mr. Perez's actions by claiming the case was ``marginal'' or
``weak.'' Once again, the documents tell a far different story.
Before Mr. Perez got involved, the career lawyers--again, not
political appointees but career lawyers--at the Department wrote a memo
recommending intervention in the case. In that memo, they describe St.
Paul's actions as ``a particularly egregious example of false
certifications.'' In fact, the career lawyers in Minnesota felt so
strongly about the case that they took the unusual step of flying here
to Washington, DC, to meet with HUD officials. HUD, of course, agreed
that the United States should intervene, but that was before Mr. Perez
got involved in the case.
The documents make clear that career lawyers considered this a strong
case, but the Department has claimed that Mike Hertz, the Department's
expert on the False Claims Act, considered it a weak case. In fact, 2
weeks ago Mr. Perez testified before my colleagues in the Senate HELP
Committee that Mr. Hertz ``had a very immediate and visceral reaction
that it was a weak case.'' But what do the documents show? They tell a
different story. Mr. Hertz knew about the case in November 2011. Two
months later a Department official took notes of a meeting where the
quid pro quo was discussed. That official wrote down Mr. Hertz's
reaction. This official wrote:
Mike--
Referring to Mr. Hertz--
Mike--Odd--Looks like buying off St. Paul. Should be
whether there are legit reasons to decline as to past
practice.
The next day that same official e-mailed the Associate Attorney
General here in town and said:
Mike Hertz brought up the St. Paul ``disparate impact''
case in which the SG [Solicitor General] just filed an amicus
brief in the Supreme Court. He's concerned about the
recommendation that we decline to intervene in two qui tam
cases against St. Paul.
So you have these documents appearing to show that Mr. Hertz's
primary concern was not the strength of the case, as Mr. Perez led
Senate colleagues to believe; Mr. Hertz was concerned that the quid pro
quo Mr. Perez ultimately arranged was, in fact, improper. And, again,
in his words, it ``looks like buying off St. Paul.''
Just last week the Justice Department sent my staff a critical 33-
page slide show about the Department's case against St. Paul. In that
document, the career lawyers made their strong case for intervention,
for the Justice Department to intervene with Newell to bring this case
about. The Department failed to provide this critical document to the
committees, and we only learned about this document not from the
Department of Justice but from a recent interview we had with a HUD
employee. Why do I say this is a critical document? Because this
document makes abundantly clear that career lawyers did not view this
case as ``marginal,'' where Mr. Perez wants you to believe that other
people in the Department, experts on false claims, thought it was a
``marginal'' or ``weak'' case. And obviously he did not view it as a
weak case, as Mr. Perez testified before the HELP Committee--far from
it.
Here is how the career lawyers summed up the case in one of the final
slides of this document. These are quotes:
The City Repeatedly and Knowingly Misrepresented its
Compliance with Section 3 to Obtain Federal Funds.
Tentative conclusions:
The City has long been aware of its obligations under
section 3;
The City repeatedly told HUD and others that it was in
Compliance with Section 3;
The City has failed to substantially comply with Section 3.
Does that sound like career lawyers describing a ``marginal'' or a
``weak'' case? Of course not. Yet that is what Mr. Perez told my
colleagues on the HELP Committee. My colleagues are well aware of how I
feel about the Whistleblower Protection Act, and my colleagues know how
I feel about protecting whistleblowers who have the courage to step
forward, often at great risk to their own careers. But this is about
much more than the whistleblower who was left dangling by Mr. Perez.
This is about the fact that Mr. Perez manipulated the rule of law in
order to get a case removed from the Supreme Court docket. But most
importantly, this is about the fact that when Congress started asking
questions about this case and when Mr. Perez was called upon to offer
his testimony under oath, he chose to tell an entirely different story.
The unavoidable conclusion is that the story he told is flatly not
supported by the facts.
We have to demand more. We have to demand that when individuals are
called upon to answer questions before the Senate, that they shoot
straight regardless of the consequences.
I do not believe Mr. Perez gave us the straight story when he was
called upon to answer questions about this case, and for that reason, I
recommend, first of all, that my colleagues study these issues. There
is a lot in this that needs to be brought out about this nomination
before we vote on it. This evidence I give is just part of the story.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the
nomination of Marilyn Tavenner to serve as Administrator of the Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services or CMS, one of the largest agencies
ever in the history of the country. For a number of reasons, CMS has
been without a confirmed Administrator since the fall of 2006.
CMS is the world's largest health insurer. It processes over a
billion Medicare and Medicaid claims a year. It has a budget of nearly
$1 trillion. It also provides services to over 100 million of our
Nation's most vulnerable citizens receiving Medicare and Medicaid. So
clearly this is a critical agency that needs a strong leader at the
helm.
Thus far, from what I have seen, Ms. Tavenner has the qualifications
to be that kind of a leader I believe her to be. She has clinical
experience from being a nurse, executive experience from serving as a
hospital administrator, and hands-on operational experience from her
time as the secretary of health and human resources for the State of
Virginia. That rare combination of skills will be essential when
heading an agency as diverse as CMS. There is a reason she was voted
out of the Senate Finance Committee on a voice vote and had the House
majority leader come testify on her behalf.
Starting in 2010, she was appointed as the Deputy Administrator of
CMS. Since November of 2011, she has served as the Acting
Administrator. So far, she has shown a willingness to work with Members
of both parties, which is a welcome development, particularly under
this administration.
At a time when the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human
Services is engaging in activities that are less than transparent and
potentially illegal, it is even more important that an agency as vital
as CMS be headed by someone with strong ethics and integrity.
Make no mistake, this agency's greatest challenges lie ahead. One of
the biggest problems facing CMS in the near future is implementation of
the
[[Page S3515]]
Federal- and State-based health insurance exchanges established under
ObamaCare. These exchanges are supposed to be brought online later this
year, but there are numerous obstacles that will have to be addressed.
By most indications, it would take a miracle for the exchanges to be up
and ready on time.
To date CMS has not been able to provide satisfactory answers to a
number of questions posed by myself and other Members of Congress
regarding the exchanges. For example, we have yet to see a breakdown of
the budget for the federally facilitated exchange. Furthermore, we
still know very little about the operational details of the exchanges
and even less about how people will enroll. These are serious issues.
With this system, you are asking American families to entrust the fate
of their health care services to the empty words and deeds of an
administration that has repeatedly shown a complete inability to be
held accountable.
More importantly, with the recent revelations of potentially criminal
behavior at the Internal Revenue Service, I am very concerned about
trusting that agency's ability to work with CMS and HHS to deliver
benefits for Americans through the exchanges.
Almost every day we see new indications that the health law is an
unmitigated disaster. We are already seeing evidence that health
insurance premium costs are continuing to rise and are projected to be,
on average, 32 percent higher in the individual market. At the same
time, according to numbers released yesterday by the Congressional
Budget Office, by 2019 almost 14 million Americans who would have had
employer-provided coverage will no longer have it.
Let me be very clear. ObamaCare is fundamentally flawed. The only
real way to fix it is to repeal it and then start again. But until we
can accomplish that goal, we need to make sure we are protecting our
fellow citizens the best we can from all the negative effects of this
law.
In addition to overseeing this massive new expansion of benefits, Ms.
Tavenner will also be charged with helping to ensure the longevity and
solvency of the existing Medicare trust fund, which is projected to go
bankrupt in 2024. All told, between now and 2030, 76 million baby
boomers will become eligible for Medicare. Even factoring in deaths
over that period, the program will grow from approximately 47 million
beneficiaries today to roughly 80 million beneficiaries in 2030.
Maintaining the solvency of the Medicare Program while continuing to
provide care for our ever-increasing beneficiary base is going to
require courageous solutions. I have had several conversations with Ms.
Tavenner about the need for structural entitlement reforms to ensure
that these programs are here for future generations. I sincerely hope
we will continue to make progress on these critical issues.
Overseeing a massive bureaucracy such as the one at CMS is not a job
for the faint of heart. I will be keeping a close eye on Ms. Tavenner
as she takes the reins. If she is to be successful, she will have to
realize she cannot do it alone. She will have to work with Members of
Congress from both parties. I hope she will do so. I believe she will.
Thus far I have reason to believe she will be one of the best leaders
we can possibly have in the government. However, if it is under her
leadership that CMS continues what has become a disappointing pattern
in this administration--not responding to legitimate congressional
inquiries and throwing promises of transparency by the wayside--I will
use the full weight of my position as the ranking member on the Senate
Finance Committee to hold her and others fully accountable. I do not
think I am going to have to do that. I actually think she is that good.
I appreciate Ms. Tavenner's willingness to serve in this difficult
position. While I still have many concerns about the policies of this
administration and the direction CMS is heading, I plan to vote in
favor of her confirmation because she has the ability and the potential
to be a real leader and already has exemplified that in many ways. I
encourage my colleagues to vote for her. I think Marilyn Tavenner is
the right prescription at the right time to help with HHS and also with
CMS which, as I said, is one of the largest agencies ever in the
history of the world. She is a good woman. She is dedicated. She has
the ability. I believe she will do a great job.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from Virginia is
recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to, first of all, commend the
Senator from Utah for his comments. We all know the Senator from Utah,
like myself, has a real interest in making sure our government is more
efficient and more effective in its operations, and know, as well, that
the Senator from Utah has not always been necessarily supportive of
health care reform, the Affordable Care Act. But I appreciate the
comments of the Senator from Utah about Marilyn Tavenner.
I have known Marilyn Tavenner for 25 years. I think while we may
disagree about the effectiveness of the Affordable Care Act, we do know
one thing: We want CMS to be the most efficient, effective organization
possible. I commend the Senator from Utah for his strong endorsement of
Marilyn Tavenner. I think he spoke eloquently about her background. I
am going to try to add a few comments, but I did not want to let him
get away without my thanking him for his comments.
I rise today to join this bipartisan show of support for the
President's nominee to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services, Marilyn Tavenner. She comes to the floor this afternoon on a
fairly unusual circumstance, considering some of the nominees we are
considering. She came actually with a unanimous voice vote from the
Senate Finance Committee. She is supported by a number of health care
organizations, including the American Hospital Association, the SEIU,
the American Nurses Association, just to name a few.
As I mentioned already, I have known Marilyn Tavenner for 25 years.
She is the real deal. She will be a phenomenal choice to continue to
lead CMS. Marilyn grew up in a small town in southside Virginia and
worked her way through school. She began her health care career not as
a hospital administrator or an executive, but she began on the front
lines as an emergency room nurse.
Then through her ability, and her ability to relate to people and
care, she rose to become CEO of a hospital and then a senior executive
of a leading health care company. I know as Governor I called upon
Marilyn on a repeated basis on health care issues that affected
Virginia. Marilyn has always been committed to people and public
service. She took that private sector knowledge and experience into the
public sector even before her tenure with this administration when she
joined my good friend, the junior Senator from Virginia Tim Kaine when
he became Governor and served with his administration as the Virginia
Secretary of Health.
Today, Marilyn has already served at the highest levels of CMS, where
she has shown her ability to manage and operate one of the largest and
most complex agencies in our whole government. By spending most of her
career in the private sector, she knows the impact that regulations and
rules have on the real world and understands the importance of not just
achieving a policy goal but ensuring that it works in practice.
As we all know, passing a law like the ACA is a complicated process,
particularly a law like this that has generated as much controversy.
That means the role of the Administrator of CMS to be evenhanded, fact-
based, effective, and efficient in implementing the dramatic
transformation of the health care market that the ACA is going to
provide will require a first class Administrator, somebody who
understands how to get things done and somebody who is well-respected
by both sides of the aisle. Marilyn Tavenner clearly fits that bill.
She is held in extraordinarily high esteem. We, again, heard the
ranking member on the Finance Committee already speak in her support.
She received unanimous support from the Finance Committee, but she is
also held in extraordinarily high esteem by her peers. In fact, in
February all of the previous living Senate-confirmed Administrators of
the CMS--Democrats, Republicans, Independents, all of them who have run
the agency in the past--sent a letter urging her confirmation,
[[Page S3516]]
noting that it was ``hard to imagine a candidate more worthy of
bipartisan support.''
I look forward to voting with what I hope will be an overwhelming
majority of my colleagues to confirm Marilyn for this very important
role a little bit later this afternoon. I know I am about to give up my
time and yield to the great new Senator from Massachusetts. I know she
is going to be speaking about another nominee, someone with whom I have
had the opportunity to visit a couple of times, for a role that may be
almost as controversial as being head of CMS, being Administrator of
EPA.
I want to say that in my conversations with Gina McCarthy she seems
to bring a breadth of background of work at the State level, working
under both Democratic and Republican administrations. I know the
Senator from Massachusetts is going to speak to her qualifications, but
as long as I am here I want to add my voice as well that I think Ms.
McCarthy will be a great head of the EPA, and I look forward to joining
my friend and colleague, the Senator from Massachusetts, in supporting
her.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.