[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.