[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 90 (Monday, May 24, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3318-S3326]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                     ENDLESS FRONTIER ACT--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 1260, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1260) to establish a new Directorate for 
     Technology and Innovation in the National Science Foundation, 
     to establish a regional technology hub program, to require a 
     strategy and report on economic security, science, research, 
     innovation, manufacturing, and job creation, to establish a 
     critical supply chain resiliency program, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Schumer amendment No. 1502, in the nature of a substitute.
       Cantwell amendment No. 1527 (to amendment No. 1502), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip


                        Tribute to Bill Houlihan

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, if you have been involved in Illinois 
politics and government in the last 40 years or if you have called my 
office in Springfield anytime in the last 24 years, there is a good 
chance you know the fellow I am about to speak about this afternoon. 
For those who haven't been lucky enough to meet him yet, let me tell 
you about my friend, one of the best people I have ever known. His name 
is Bill Houlihan.
  Bill came to work on my first Senate campaign in 1996, and when we 
won, I asked him to be my staff director for downstate Illinois--all 96 
counties. He has been with me ever since, and now he is State director 
of the entire State. Whenever I can't attend an event in Illinois, Bill 
is the person I turn to. I don't have to write any speech for him, and 
I don't have to check on what he said. People know Bill speaks for me, 
and I have complete confidence in his judgment and integrity.
  Everybody seems to know him. Just try going to a grocery store with 
Bill Houlihan in Springfield, IL. Be prepared for delays as everyone 
needs to talk to him or to thank him for something that he might have 
done: Thanks for helping my mom get her Social Security. Thanks for 
helping my dad with the Veterans Health Administration. Thanks for 
helping to get that passport so my daughter could go away to school. 
Thanks for helping the local union get the project that creates the 
jobs here in our community.
  Over the years, Bill has helped thousands of people find jobs and 
provide for their families. He knows about the dignity of work. He does 
whatever he can to help whomever he can, having no expectation of any 
recognition.
  Bill started his professional life in 1981, fresh out of Eastern 
Illinois University. He was the class president. His first job was with 
the Illinois Education Association. They sent him into a David-and-
Goliath battle scene in Peoria, IL, where they were trying to convince 
the local teachers to sign up with the IEA. They hired Bill 6 weeks 
before the crucial election and sent him into Peoria--his first 
campaign for a union. You see, Bill had worked on political campaigns 
for his dad, and I will talk about those in a minute.
  When he got down to Peoria--a place where he had never lived--
everybody knew him, and whenever he went up and introduced himself as 
Bill Houlihan, they would say: Well, are you the son of Bill Houlihan?
  He would say: No, I am the son of John Houlihan.
  Bill didn't understand for a while why he kept getting that question. 
It turns out that he had exactly the same name as Peoria's longtime and 
venerable TV weathercaster Bill Houlihan.
  When, as a young union organizer, Bill showed up, puzzled teachers 
always said: Are you sure you are not related to Bill Houlihan?
  Our Bill Houlihan was no TV personality, but Peoria teachers quickly 
learned that he cared about them and

[[Page S3319]]

that he knew his stuff. Just as important, he understands how to build 
political organizations and campaigns and how to use that power to help 
everyday people. Thank goodness for me he knows how to win. The IEA won 
the election in a close, upset victory back in the day. It was the 
first of many election campaign victories for Bill Houlihan.
  Bill and Cindy, his wife, are the parents of four children, but they 
did it the hard way--one set of triplets and a bonus baby born 22 
months later. Mariah, John, Grant, Neil are all grown up now, but when 
they were younger, at the start of every school year, their teachers 
would often ask them: Is Bill Houlihan your dad? That question was 
followed with the teachers telling stories about Bill and how he had 
helped them. This young, unknown organizer had become a legend in his 
own right. These stories were the only way the Houlihan kids learned 
about what their dad did for a living. He never bragged about himself; 
he was too modest.
  Driving around the State of Illinois for over 20 years with Bill 
Houlihan, I have heard a lot of stories, but I think the thing that 
impressed me the most was when he talked about his dad--what a 
remarkable man. I was lucky to know him.
  John Houlihan was born in a section of Chicago which describes where 
you might find it. It is called Back of the Yards; that is, the 
stockyards. In that section of the city, immigrant families got their 
start and worked in some of the hardest jobs in Chicago. John's father 
was a slaughterhouse worker. John himself grew up on the South Side of 
Chicago--in that area--and his dream came true. As an Irish Catholic 
kid, he was admitted to Notre Dame University. Can I tell you what a 
big deal that is still today? For the kids in those parishes to 
consider going to Notre Dame was nothing short of a miracle. So John 
Houlihan, Bill's father, who was 6 feet 4, incidentally, was going to 
try out for the basketball team at Notre Dame University, an absolute 
dream come true. Yet there was an intervening event which the Presiding 
Officer will appreciate. It was called Pearl Harbor.
  John Houlihan, Bill's dad, had to drop out of Notre Dame University 
to enlist in the U.S. Marines. He served in many campaigns. As his 21st 
birthday approached, his mom and dad sent him a little gift, a belt. It 
was small enough that it could make it through the mail, and at least 
he knew they were thinking of him on his birthday. He was embarking on 
the Battle of Bougainville on his 21st birthday, an island in the South 
Pacific. A grenade explosion ripped through his left leg in that 
battle. Lucky for him, he pulled off that belt and applied it as a 
tourniquet. It saved his life, but it couldn't save his leg. It was 
amputated at the hip. The Allied forces won that battle, and John 
Houlihan spent a year and a half recovering in veterans hospitals.
  He left the Marines with a chest full of medals, including three 
Bronze Stars, a Marine Corps Medal, and, of course, a Purple Heart. He 
went back to Chicago with one leg, an artificial leg, and a cane or a 
crutch. He went to a dance in the basement of St. Gabriel's Catholic 
Church on the Chicago South Side, and he met his future wife Vernal. 
They had eight kids together. Bill was the middle child, the fourth of 
the eight kids. Amazingly, his dad, despite having that devastating 
injury, wanted to get involved in politics. He moved to Park Forest, 
IL, just south of Chicago, to raise his family in a larger house, as 
you can imagine, and decided to run for the Illinois General Assembly 
in 1964.
  I have a picture here I am going to show you. This is John Houlihan, 
Bill's dad, and this is his brother Mike. Bill is over here at the age 
of 10. His dad was elected to the general assembly. He served with some 
of the giants of Illinois' political history: my friend Paul Simon, 
Adlai Stevenson, and Harold Washington. John Houlihan fit right in.
  As an amputee, at a time before the Americans with Disabilities Act, 
John Houlihan knew that they would applaud you on Memorial Day and 
Veterans Day but that it was hard as heck for a disabled vet--really 
severely disabled like John Houlihan--to get a job. He fought for those 
disabled vets just like himself, so much so that, when he came to the 
Illinois General Assembly in Springfield, the Black Caucus invited him 
to serve as a member. They knew that he appreciated what discrimination 
was all about. He accepted the invitation as an honor.
  Years later, when his son Bill Houlihan was working in that same 
Illinois State Senate, the Black Caucus asked that he be assigned to 
them as a staff member because they knew of his reputation--Bill 
Houlihan's reputation--for being willing to fight for the underdog.
  John Houlihan served in the general assembly for 8 years before 
turning his full attention to veterans' rights.
  He served with the Illinois Department of Veterans' Affairs, the 
Veterans' Administration here in Washington, and the Cook County 
Veterans Assistance Commission. His young son Bill was watching him 
throughout this life experience, and I know he came to appreciate his 
dad's courage and determination that he was going to build a family and 
build a life despite his serious disability.
  He also knew what it was like for his dad. I remember his dad, a 
World War II vet. We look today to amputees who have the good fortune, 
thank goodness, of modern prosthetics, even computer-driven devices to 
help them lead as normal a life as possible. That wasn't the luck of 
the World War II vets. They were given some crude artificial legs, and 
they did their best.
  I can still picture Bill's dad John--one-legged man, lumbering around 
life with this big, wooden leg of his that he would just swing forward 
as he made it with his cane and made his life despite that handicap.
  Bill's mom was a big influence on him as well. She might have been 
quieter than his dad but just as strong. Think what kind of woman it 
was who would marry John Houlihan, quickly returning from war, trying 
to make a life. Vernal Houlihan was a kind, generous woman. No matter 
how tight money was, there was always room for one more place at the 
Houlihan dinner table.
  Bill Houlihan is just like both his parents, the same courage and 
determination and the same sense of caring.
  The heart of every congressional office is something called casework, 
helping constituents untangle redtape caused by government bureaucracy 
or to help solve everyday problems in their lives that mean the world 
to them.
  Bill Houlihan may be the only State director in this Senate who still 
does casework along with his colleagues in addition to all his other 
duties. I can't count the number of people whose burdens have been made 
lighter by Bill Houlihan.
  He logs every call he receives, and his day doesn't end until he 
returns every call. He treats every person with dignity, compassion, 
and respect, and he always makes time for them.
  When we would drive around the State, thousands and thousands of 
miles, it reached the point where people would call him in his car. The 
phone never stopped.
  Many times I said to Bill: Why don't you pick up on that when we get 
back to Springfield tomorrow?
  No, he said. I knew he was going to call, this buddy of mine. He 
calls me every day. He just wants to chat for just a few minutes. I 
will be done, Boss, in just a minute.
  And he would take the call.
  Many people called him just to hear his friendly voice. He has fans 
the likes of which I wish I had some days. A lot of chiefs of staff 
would think twice about that approach to the job but not Bill. That is 
just who he is.
  Our office in Springfield is located in the same block as Abraham 
Lincoln's home. That neighborhood is part of the National Park Service. 
When Bill walks down the block, he greets every park ranger by name, 
and they know him by name. It is like that wherever we go.
  Illinois is filled with young leaders all over the State--women and 
men, Black White, and Brown--who didn't know they could be a leader 
until they met Bill Houlihan. He is one of the best talent scouts and 
coaches I have ever known. He boosts the confidence of everyone who 
works for him or with him.
  He crisscrosses the State of Illinois in his dark-blue minivan; they 
call it the Houli-van. The miles he puts on that van every year might 
take him to China or the Moon. He knows every

[[Page S3320]]

mile marker on every highway in our State by heart.
  He has, at last count, 47,000 contacts in his Palm Pilot--yes, he 
still has a Palm Pilot--and I think he knows 20,000 of those telephone 
numbers by heart. He has an encyclopedic mind for names, numbers, 
election results, sports stats, history--everything--and he shares 
everything he has learned with anyone who might benefit from his 
knowledge.
  In between organizing for the IEA and joining my staff, Bill worked 
as a legislative director the Illinois Senate Democrats and downstate 
director for Senator Carol Moseley Braun, the first woman of color to 
serve in the Senate.
  One of these pictures here is the early days when he was just getting 
started as an organizer, hair much darker than it is today.
  Now, let me show you a more recent appearance. This is Bill. He is 
speaking at the Women's March in Springfield in 2017.
  Usually, he is very soft-spoken, until he gets in front of a 
microphone, and that is when he turns up the volume. Oh, there is one 
other time he turns up the volume. If he is watching his Fighting Irish 
play football and they score a touchdown, Bill will let out a scream 
that will rattle the windows.
  Always, always Bill Houlihan is the voice for people whose hopes and 
needs aren't heard enough within the halls of the Senate or the halls 
of power. He is a voice of compassion, encouragement, wisdom, and 
decency.
  Loretta and I are lucky to call Bill and Cindy some of our best and 
dearest friends. So it is hard to say, but this is his last week on the 
job with the U.S. Senate. It hurts to lose a man who has given me such 
a big part of his life. It is going to take its toll on my office, my 
politics, and my life, but I can guarantee you that I will be calling 
Bill just as often as I always have. He may not be on the payroll, but 
I know he will take my call.
  Bill and Cindy want to move on to the next chapter in their lives. 
That is understandable. I am sure it is going to include some traveling 
and special time with their kids and grandkids.
  Bill, God bless him, just volunteered again to once again become the 
chairman of the Sangamon County, IL, Democratic Party--a post he held 
years ago.
  Above all, I know that Bill will continue to help everyone he can in 
every way he can because that is who he is and always has been.
  Bill, I hope you are watching--Cindy too. Thank you. I couldn't have 
done it without you. Loretta and I wish you and Cindy and your whole 
family good health and happiness in all the years to come.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Duckworth). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Hawaii.


                    Nomination of Kristen M. Clarke

  Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, I rise today in support of the 
nomination of Kristen Clarke to be Assistant Attorney General for the 
Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.
  In the 4\1/2\ months since she was nominated, my Republican 
colleagues and their rightwing allies have engaged in a coordinated 
smear campaign to distort Kristen Clarke's record. It is past time to 
set things straight.
  Kristen Clarke is a supremely capable and qualified nominee to lead 
the Civil Rights Division. I would argue that she is among the most 
well-credentialed and qualified nominees ever to serve in this role.
  During her career, she has served as a trial attorney in the 
Division's voting section; a prosecutor in the Division's criminal 
section; an assistant counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense and Education 
Fund and later as the codirector of its Political Participation Group; 
as the civil rights chief of the New York State Attorney General's 
Civil Rights Bureau; and as president and executive director of the 
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, one of the Nation's 
preeminent civil rights organizations. Kristen Clarke's credentials for 
this job are unimpeachable.
  Unable to undermine her nomination on the merits, Senate Republicans 
have engaged in a vicious smear campaign against Kristen Clarke because 
they are afraid she will actually do her job. They are afraid she will 
enforce our civil rights statutes, challenge discriminatory voting 
laws, combat systemic racism in policing, and protect the LGBTQ 
community.
  This work is urgently needed after the Civil Rights Division endured 
4 years of intentional neglect and outright hostility during the Trump 
administration. During its 4 years in office, the Trump administration 
brought only a single case--one--under the Voting Rights Act, even as 
States like Georgia, Ohio, and Wisconsin worked to suppress the vote by 
targeting people of color.
  The previous administration also effectively ended the use of consent 
decrees to bring police departments into compliance with the 
Constitution. It abandoned this critical tool at the worst possible 
moment, as the Nation watched Black Americans like George Floyd and 
Breonna Taylor killed by officers sworn to protect and serve.
  President Biden nominated Kristen Clarke to lead the Civil Rights 
Division because she is precisely the leader we need at this critical 
moment. But for 4\1/2\ months, my Republican colleagues have tried to 
tear down this highly qualified woman of color with unfounded smears 
and outright lies. They feign outrage over a satirical letter Ms. 
Clarke wrote as an undergrad at Harvard in 1994, over 25 years ago.
  I don't recall any comparable Republican outrage when Michael 
Truncale, then a practicing attorney for decades, disparaged President 
Obama as an ``un-American imposter [who] bows to Arab Sheikhs and other 
world leaders.'' Instead, they confirmed him to a lifetime appointment 
as a judge in the Eastern District of Texas.
  Senate Republicans have also tried to paint Ms. Clarke as some sort 
of anti-Semite--again, reaching back 25 years to criticize a speaker 
Ms. Clarke invited to campus as an undergrad. They conveniently ignore 
that Ms. Clarke has addressed their concerns head-on and demonstrated a 
long track record of defending religious rights throughout her career.
  Her work in this area has earned her the support of the National 
Council of Jewish Women and the Anti-Defamation League, among other 
organizations. And if we needed any more evidence to rebut this 
outrageous claim, we should all look to the words of Attorney General 
Merrick Garland, who forcefully said: ``I'm a pretty good judge of what 
an anti-Semite is, and I do not believe she is an anti-Semite.''
  Republicans are also trying to derail Kristen Clarke's nomination by 
pushing the lie that she supports defunding the police. It doesn't 
matter how many times they repeat the lie, it will never be true. Ms. 
Clarke has clearly expressed her support for shifting resources to 
social workers and mental health professionals so that police officers 
are no longer called upon to address every problem in society. This is 
not defunding the police, no matter what twisted definition is used.
  As the Senate Judiciary Committee prepared to vote on Ms. Clarke's 
nomination, several Republicans took this baseless criticism to a 
pathetic, ridiculous new low. The junior Senator from Texas claimed 
that voting for Ms. Clarke--and, previously, voting to confirm Vanita 
Gupta as Associate Attorney General--put ``every single Democratic 
Member of the United States Senate. . . . on record supporting 
abolishing''--abolishing--``the police.'' ``Abolishing the police''--
that is what he said--not defunding, not reforming, abolishing. What a 
crock.
  Unfortunately, we have come to expect these laughable exaggerations 
from our colleague from Texas. He would rather smear a nominee with 
baseless charges than engage with the facts, because neither Kristen 
Clarke nor Vanita Gupta has ever supported abolishing the police. 
Neither of them has said anything remotely close to this. If they had, 
I am sure it would come as news to the Fraternal Order of Police, the 
Major County Sheriffs of America, and the International Association of 
Chiefs of Police, all of whom endorsed Vanita Gupta's nomination. You 
might also want to ask the Major

[[Page S3321]]

Cities Chiefs Association and the National Organization of Black Law 
Enforcement Executives why they endorsed Kristen Clarke if she is 
looking to put their members out of work. The fact is, she is not. This 
smear is only one example of the baseless, personal attacks Kristen 
Clarke has endured by those seeking to derail her nomination.
  This week, the Senate can and should repudiate the vicious rightwing 
smear campaign against Ms. Clarke and confirm her as the next leader of 
the Civil Rights Division.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                             National Guard

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, yesterday was the last day that members 
of the National Guard were stationed at the Capitol. In the wake of 
January 6, they have all done us an extraordinary service providing an 
additional layer of security here. I want to thank everyone on behalf 
of the Senate and the entire Capitol Complex.
  It was never our intention to have an element of the U.S. military on 
guard at the Capitol for an indefinite period. It was always a 
temporary solution to a temporary security threat caused by the former 
President--a reality acknowledged by the House and Senate minority 
leaders in the immediate aftermath of January 6 but not much since.
  Going forward, we must establish and maintain a critical balance 
between security and access. The Capitol is a place that belongs to the 
people. We want visitors and tourists to be able to come and go. We 
want constituents to be able to meet their representatives and make 
their voices heard. We also have an obligation to make everyone--
Members, staff, media, employees of the Capitol--feel safe when they 
come to work. Our Senate committees and the new team at the Sergeant at 
Arms are working very hard to strike that perfect balance.
  We thank once again the National Guard for helping us protect this 
place during a very difficult period for our democracy.


                       Business Before the Senate

  Madam President, now on Senate business, this week, the Senate will 
consider at least two nominations for important positions in the 
executive branch: Chiquita Brooks-LaSure to be the next Administrator 
of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid and Kristen Clarke to be the 
next Assistant Attorney General.
  Ms. Clarke would become the first woman and the first woman of color 
to formally lead the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division since 
it was established in 1957.
  I look forward to confirming both nominees this week.
  The Senate will also continue its work on the U.S. Innovation and 
Competition Act--the largest stand-alone investment in American science 
and technology in decades. With a once-in-a-generation investment in 
the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the 
Department of Commerce, and other vital entities, this legislation will 
set our country on a path to outinnovate, outproduce, and outcompete 
the world in the industries of the future.
  As the week goes on, we will consider a number of amendments from 
both sides of the aisle, as well as a managers' amendment, to bring 
together a package of bipartisan changes to the bill. This is regular 
order in action.
  The bill itself is the product of at least six Senate committees and 
includes input from nearly every Member of the Senate. As promised, we 
are working in a bipartisan way and a much more open way than the 
Senate used to act to allow amendments and debate. When a bill passes 
22 to 4 out of one of its major committees and 21 to 1 out of another, 
it is truly bipartisan, and we should be able to move this bill forward 
without any dilatory obstruction. With so much cooperation happening, I 
see no reason why we can't finish the legislation by the end of the 
week.
  So far, this bill has flown a bit under the radar, but it is an 
incredibly important piece of legislation. At its core, the U.S. 
Innovation and Competition Act is about maintaining America's role as 
the global economic leader. Few issues could be more important. Just 
because it may have its effect 2, 3, 4, 5 years from now and not the 
day after it passes doesn't mean that it isn't one of the most 
important pieces of legislation we could pass.
  The next century will be won or lost on the battleground of 
technological innovation. The country that leads the world in science 
and tech will create a generation of millions of good-paying jobs, 
economic growth, and prosperity for its citizens, with profound 
implications for national security as well.
  We want American workers, American businesses, and American values to 
lead the way in the 21st century, just as they did in the 20th century. 
That is what the Innovation and Competition Act is all about.
  I look forward to working with Members from both parties to complete 
this legislation by the end of the week.


                          January 6 Commission

  Madam President, now on a final matter, the Senate will soon consider 
bipartisan legislation passed by the House to create an independent 
Commission to investigate and report on the January 6 attack on the 
Capitol. I have already taken procedural steps to make the legislation 
available for consideration on the Senate floor. I will bring the bill 
forward for a vote very soon. I will have more to say on that in the 
coming days.
  The formation of the Commission is more important now than it has 
ever been in the months since January 6. Washington Republicans have 
tried to rewrite history and recast the attack on January 6 as little 
more than peaceful protests that got out of hand. One Republican Member 
said the rioters were more like a group of ``normal tourists.'' Did you 
see the tapes? Did you see the films, America? Those were normal 
tourists? Another went so far as to say the mob--not the staff who were 
terrorized or the police who were brutalized--were the real victims of 
January 6. Give me a break.

  For the sake of our democracy, it is crucial to establish an 
independent and trusted record of what truly transpired. According to 
an Ipsos poll today, 56 percent of Republicans believe that the 
election was rigged, and 53 percent of Republicans believe that Donald 
Trump is the true President, not Joe Biden. That is what the Big Lie 
has caused. The majority of one of America's two major political 
parties doesn't believe our President is the actual President.
  Now more than ever, both parties must stand up to the Big Lie and 
shine a light on the truth of the 2020 elections and what happened on 
January 6. Yet it seems our Republican colleagues would rather avoid 
the subject entirely. The Republican leader, after moving the goalposts 
week after week, announced his opposition to the Commission, despite 
the fact that Democrats agreed to every single request made by the 
House Republican leader.
  One Republican Senator said this weekend that it was ``too early'' to 
establish a Commission. Another admitted that many Republicans opposed 
the Commission because they feared it would hurt the Republican message 
in the midterm elections. Talk about saying the quiet part out loud.
  The prevailing view among Republicans seems to be that we should 
sweep the Big Lie and all of January 6 under the rug like it never 
happened. Look, I am sorry that some Republicans believe that a 
bipartisan investigation of the attack on our democracy is inconvenient 
for their midterm campaigns, but the Democratic-led Congress of the 
United States is not going to sweep January 6 under the rug. We are 
going to vote on the January 6 Commission in the Senate, and the 
American people will see where every Member stands: on the side of 
truth or on the side of Donald Trump's Big Lie.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S3322]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       National Foster Care Month

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, each year, the month of May is 
recognized as National Foster Care Month. I thank my colleagues for 
once again unanimously passing a resolution recognizing and bringing 
awareness to the experiences of youth and families in the foster care 
system.
  This month, organizations in Iowa and around the entire country have 
been working to support youth in foster care and the foster parents who 
open their homes to the kids in need. And they deserve this 
recognition. In 2019, the most recent year for which data is available, 
there were over 426,000 kids in foster care in the United States. In 
Iowa alone, there were almost 6,000.
  As stated in our resolution, Congress must continue to work toward 
real solutions for these young people because they face trauma, abuse, 
and neglect. Obviously, there are a lot of them who get loving care as 
well.
  In recent years, lots of changes have been made to the way that child 
welfare works. Congress passed the Family First Prevention Services Act 
in 2018. The goal of that act was to provide more services to families 
before removing children from the home, before that action had to be 
taken. And that is where you ought to start--preserve the family as 
much as you can, as long as the children are not being mistreated.
  This bill also seeks to help kids who age out of foster care have 
access to more support and successfully transition to adulthood and to 
independence.
  I was glad to support this legislation, and I hope that, as it is 
implemented, we see positive outcomes for these young people and their 
families. All children, no matter what their circumstances, deserve a 
permanent, loving home and consistent, caring adults in their life.
  When you visit with these young people, some of them tell us about 
being in two or three school systems in a year so obviously probably in 
two or three different homes in a year. And what you hear from them is 
``I would like to have a mom and dad. I would like to have a home. I 
would like to go to the same school for the whole year.'' They want 
some consistency and some permanency. I guess that is what it all adds 
up to.
  Research has shown that the presence of just one caring adult who is 
available for advice, for support, and for guidance can make a 
meaningful difference for children in foster care. For some young 
people, this may be a foster parent who maintains a relationship with a 
child even after temporary placement is over. For other kids, this may 
mean an aunt or an uncle, a family member who is willing to shoulder 
the responsibilities of providing a loving home. Others may benefit 
from a court-appointed special advocate, what we know as CASA, or a 
guardian ad litem. These are volunteers assigned to be a child's 
advocate.
  For a system designed to protect children, often the child welfare 
system does not give much opportunity for a child's voice to be heard, 
and it is a very important voice to listen to. CASAs are often the only 
adults in the court proceedings who are exclusively advocating for what 
the youth in foster care wants. I am happy that this year, for the 
first time, May 18 was labeled National CASA/GAL Volunteers Day to 
honor the service of these volunteers.
  I salute all those who work tirelessly to support kids in foster care 
in Iowa and nationwide.
  When I founded the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth in 2009, the special 
focus was to hear directly from the young people themselves. Older 
youth in foster care and adults who experienced foster care as a child 
can speak to what worked for them and, of course, what didn't work. 
They should always have a seat at the table.
  Over and over again, I have heard the same thing from kids in foster 
care, so I am repeating what I said previously. They want a mom and a 
dad, they want a family, and they want a place to call home. For some 
kids, this goal can be met by their family's getting help with mental 
illness, substance abuse, or housing. For others, the dream of a family 
can be found through foster care and eventually adoption. For others, 
kinship care provides an opportunity for stability and permanency.
  There is no one-size-fits-all approach, no silver bullet that can 
help all kids the same way, but there is one common outcome that we can 
strive for. We should be wary of attempts to undo progress that has 
been made in speeding up adoptions and providing permanency for these 
children. The goal should always be to protect kids from neglect and 
abuse and, at the same time, improve their well-being.
  Moving ahead now, Congress must continue to work to find better 
solutions and secure better outcomes for youth in foster care.
  Once again, I thank my colleagues for passing this resolution 
recognizing May as Foster Care Month.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                S. 1260

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, a few hours ago, I had the pleasure of 
joining Secretary Raimondo and Senator Warner of Virginia for a tour of 
the Micron Technologies manufacturing plant just outside Washington, 
DC, in Manassas, VA. This is one of the great companies with facilities 
that produce semiconductors on U.S. soil.
  Secretary Raimondo, Senator Warner, and I were given a behind-the-
scenes tour of how these advanced chips, or semiconductors, are made, 
and we discussed some of the reasons why it is more expensive to build 
these facilities in the United States.
  The average American uses countless products every day that could not 
function without semiconductors. For everything from cell phones, to 
televisions, to cars and dishwashers, chips underpin our most-used 
technology. As we become more technology dependent, it is going to get 
nothing but more important. But it is not just consumer products; cell 
towers, water treatment plants, agricultural equipment, our energy 
grid--semiconductors make all of that possible.
  These tiny technologies also play a huge role in our national 
defense. When we send our troops on a mission by land, sea, air, or 
even in cyber space, they need the best equipment available. Now more 
than ever, the equipment can't function without these chips.
  Just look at Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system. This highly 
sophisticated system of rocket interceptors is a great example of the 
role that chips play in national security--not only ours but of our 
allies' as well. We know that the number of civilian casualties that 
would be caused if not for the protection of the Iron Dome for the 
Israeli people would be significantly higher. I asked my staff to find 
out how many semiconductors are actually in one of those interceptors 
that knock out one of those rockets coming from Hamas. What I found out 
is that every single one of these interceptors contains more than 750 
different semiconductors.
  So it is not hyperbole to say that there are life-and-death 
consequences to a reliable semiconductor supply chain, but right now, 
we are in a seriously vulnerable situation. Over the last two decades, 
the United States has gone from producing roughly a quarter of the 
world's semiconductors to about 12 percent. At the same time, China, 
our rival, our competitor that we are talking about a lot this week and 
last, has gone from manufacturing zero chips to now 16 percent of the 
world's supply, and it plans to invest another $1.4 trillion in 
semiconductor technologies.
  Right now, China is building 17 fabs, or manufacturing facilities, in 
China. We are maybe thinking about building one, through Taiwan 
Semiconductor in Arizona, but it depends on our willingness and ability 
to support that domestic manufacturing whether or not they actually 
complete that currently planned manufacturing facility. But when we are 
looking to our adversaries to supply the technology to power our most 
critical devices and systems, it is a huge problem.

  The global shortage we are seeing right now is a glimpse of what 
things could look like and worse. The lack of supply has forced 
companies across the

[[Page S3323]]

full range of impacted industries to scale back production or hit pause 
altogether. We have seen that particularly in the car manufacture 
business.
  This shortage has led to some serious consequences. If companies have 
to shut down production, which is happening right now, due to lack of 
supply of semiconductors, there are hard-working Americans who aren't 
able to earn a paycheck. This impact, as I have suggested, is now being 
felt by autoworkers across the country.
  But we have every expectation that in a few months things will get 
back to normal. Those production lines will start back up, workers will 
be back on the job, and life will carry on hopefully as normal.
  But the bigger question we need to ask is how would we fare if our 
supply chain to advance semiconductors was cut off entirely. Let's say 
it is another pandemic or a natural disaster or, heaven forbid, a 
military conflict in the South China Sea.
  Nearly 90 percent of the world's chips are made in Southeast Asia. If 
that supply was cut off for any reason, what would we do? The 
consequences wouldn't be limited to a few bells and whistles on new 
cars. It would impact our missile defense systems, the F-35--the fifth 
generation Joint Strike Fighter--advanced weapons systems, quantum 
computing, and the full range of equipment and technologies our 
national defense depends on. If we don't have the ability to provide 
our troops with the technology they need to be successful, what would 
we do?
  Well, the risks of carrying on business as usual are far too high for 
us to even contemplate that scenario. There is a clear need to invest 
in domestic semiconductor manufacturing and secure perhaps our most 
vulnerable supply chain. As we continue to debate the most effective 
ways to confront threats from China and bolster our national and 
economic security, there is no question that funding to shore up 
domestic semiconductor manufacturing is a must-do.
  Last year, Senator Warner, the senior Senator from Virginia, and I 
introduced the CHIPS for America Act, and it was adopted by an 
amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act with broad 
bipartisan support on a vote of 96 to 4--a rare thing these days. That 
bill became law earlier this year, and now we have the important job of 
providing the funding for it, something I hope we can achieve through 
the legislation that is before the Senate today.
  During the committee consideration of the bill, an amendment was 
added that would apply the controversial prevailing wage language to 
this portion of the bill. Considering the current wages of U.S. 
semiconductor manufacturing companies, it really is a nonissue. But 
what is an issue is expansion of Davis-Bacon prevailing wage 
provisions, not for public works but to private companies. And I 
believe the inclusion of this provision includes some roadblocks on the 
way to passage of this final legislation.
  So last week I introduced the amendment to strike this unnecessary 
and divisive provision and to protect the broad bipartisan support this 
legislation has already received. A controversial provision that 
doesn't even enact any real change is hardly a reason to let the 
funding go down the drain, and it really is just an unnecessary 
distraction. We don't need any other speed bumps in our ability to pass 
this important bipartisan legislation.
  I hope our colleagues will continue to work with us in good faith to 
reach a compromise that will earn broad bipartisan support.
  Last year the CHIPS for America Act, as I said, passed with a vote of 
96 to 4, and there is no reason why this critical funding that we will 
be voting on this week should be politicized now.


                  Nomination of Chiquita Brooks-LaSure

  Finally, Madam President, on another matter, this evening the Senate 
will take up a procedural vote on the President's nominee for the 
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
  CMS, as we all know, plays a vital role in providing healthcare to 
our most vulnerable populations. More than 4 million Texans, including 
half of our children, depend on the stability of our State's Medicaid 
Program to provide healthcare for them and their families. And in 
States across the country, Medicare funding is vital to the health of 
our most vulnerable friends and neighbors for everything from an 
emergency room visit to mental healthcare. But that could soon change.
  The Biden administration has taken the unprecedented step of 
rescinding an agreement with my State and the previous administration 
to maintain the stability of our State's Medicaid Program. Under this 
agreement, Texas was set to receive approximately $11 billion a year 
over the next decade to provide healthcare for our underserved 
population. Low-income individuals and those in rural areas are 
especially reliant on this funding, as are those who need mental 
healthcare. Mental and behavioral health providers alone receive about 
$300 million a year.
  When asked for the reasoning behind this dangerous and frankly 
shocking move, rescinding a prior agreement extending our 1115 waiver, 
CMS said it was to correct their administrative error--their error. But 
two anonymous Federal healthcare officials, I believe, did something 
that is all too rare here in Washington: They actually said the truth. 
They explained the real reasoning to the Washington Post. They said it 
was done ``to push state officials toward accepting the Affordable Care 
Act's Medicaid expansion.''
  So, in effect, the administration is doing something that the Supreme 
Court of the United States said it cannot do, which is to hold a gun to 
the head of the States and force them to accept Medicaid expansion. So 
now what they couldn't do under the Supreme Court's decision, they are 
trying to do now by holding our healthcare hostage in order to force 
the expansion of Medicaid into our State. That is a choice left up to 
the Governor and our elected legislature, not one to be made by 
bureaucrats with the Department of Health and Human Services or CMS.

  While patients in Texas may be the first ones caught in this 
political game, I have no expectation that they will be the last. As a 
matter of fact, there are only four States that don't have approved or 
pending 1115 waivers, which is what we are talking about--four. There 
are only four that don't have those. So every other State beyond those 
four could be in the same situation my State is in, in the coming 
months. Whether it is Florida, Tennessee, North Carolina, South 
Carolina, Missouri, Idaho--the list of States that could be impacted by 
this life-and-death game of political chicken is a long one.
  Of course, this all comes at a time when our healthcare system is 
already in fragile condition after more than a year of battling COVID-
19. And the patients whose healthcare relies on the stability of the 
Medicaid system are those who have faced the biggest challenges during 
the pandemic.
  I have asked the Biden administration to work with the State to 
ensure that millions of impacted individuals won't lose access to 
healthcare, but so far there has been little or no progress. The 
administration has been unable to provide me any assurance that an 
agreement could be reached before the end of this fiscal year--
something that would have dire consequences on our providers and 
especially those in behavioral and mental health.
  To state the obvious, the nominee to lead CMS, Ms. Brooks-LaSure, did 
not personally rescind the Texas Medicaid waiver. As a matter of fact, 
she hasn't been confirmed yet; so she couldn't. But before her 
nomination could advance, Members of the Senate deserve a commitment 
from the administration that it won't try to force the hand of other 
States, including Texas, by putting the healthcare of millions of 
vulnerable citizens on the line.
  If we don't stand up now and push back on this reckless move, who 
will be next? Which State will be next? How far will the administration 
go to force States into enacting laws that they do not want to enact?
  CMS funding is vital to the healthcare of millions of my constituents 
and to the stability of our entire healthcare system. CMS cannot be 
used as the administration's strong arm to coerce States into accepting 
its political demands, which is all this is.
  I appreciate Ms. Brooks-LaSure's experience in working with States to 
develop these types of waivers and her willingness to meet with me on 
this issue, but frankly this is a decision being made above her in the 
food chain. But my State has not so far received

[[Page S3324]]

an assurance that this action will be rectified, and it looks like the 
administration is intent on pulling the rug out from under our poorest 
and most needy patients.
  For that reason, I cannot support this nominee, and I urge my 
colleagues to stand with me and, in doing so, stand up for the 
healthcare of their most vulnerable constituents, too, and pushing the 
administration to find an alternate and satisfactory path forward. If 
the administration will take aim at the healthcare of 4 million 
vulnerable Texans, they will do it to anyone.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.


                              Memorial Day

  Mr. TUBERVILLE. Madam President, a week from today, we will be 
celebrating Memorial Day. I know folks back home probably have some fun 
things planned for the long weekend--cookouts, family gatherings, maybe 
even a trip to the beach.
  But while Memorial Day is a joyous, carefree weekend for many 
families, it is a reminder of what they lost--a father, a mother, 
husband, or a wife, a son, daughter, brother, sister, a family member, 
a friend that cannot be replaced.
  Our Gold Star families have given a great sacrifice to our country. I 
have been there myself. My father served in World War II, driving a 
tanker across Europe. He earned five Bronze Stars and a Purple Heart. 
After the war, he died on Active Duty.
  And I still miss him today. I am forever grateful that he, like so 
many folks from his generation, put on that uniform. They enlisted, not 
knowing whether they would ever come home. Many of them--hundreds of 
thousands--did not.
  But they knew what they were doing was worth the danger. They knew 
the United States of America and all she stood for was worth defending. 
They earned the title of the ``greatest generation.''
  I will be introducing a resolution this week honoring the immense 
sacrifice of the ``greatest generation'' and not just those who put on 
the uniform. This resolution recognizes the millions of Americans who 
worked in the factories, bought war bonds, and donated their pots, 
pans, and more to a war effort. We owe the ``greatest generation'' a 
debt we can never fully repay.
  I want to take a moment to thank Mr. Sam Romano from Vestavia Hills, 
AL, for advocating on behalf of the ``greatest generation'' and his 
contributions to this resolution.
  Today, we have more than a million Active-Duty service men and women 
who continue to defend our freedoms. They, too, stand ready to answer 
the call when evil threatens America. They, too, stand ready to give 
their lives to defend their country, if need be.
  The United States stands on the foundation of generations of service 
men and women who gave their lives to defend their country. Their 
sacrifices created the most free and prosperous country in the history 
of the world.
  We are not perfect, far from it, but our unique system of government 
is distinguished from any other--``of the people, by the people, and 
for the people.'' That is why I stand for the flag and for our national 
anthem because for the last 250 years, men and women have given their 
lives for all this flag represents. They gave their lives to defend our 
right to make our country better.
  The continued service of our military allows us to have that barbecue 
this weekend. Their service allows us to gather freely with family and 
friends, to think, to worship, and live how we want to. Memorial Day 
reminds us that our freedom and prosperity comes at a cost.
  So for this upcoming Memorial Day weekend, I would encourage all of 
us to take a moment to remember what we are celebrating: the brave men 
and women who laid down their lives for ours. Let's honor our soldiers' 
sacrifice by keeping our country strong and upholding the values they 
gave their lives to defend.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered


                      Military Appreciation Month

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, this month is Military Appreciation 
Month. It is a month when we let our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines 
know just how grateful we are for their service. Madam President, we 
are grateful for the service that you gave our Nation in uniform. We 
thank you for that.
  Tennessee is home to three major military installations and numerous 
other Guard installations. For us, Military Appreciation Month actually 
lasts all year long.
  I would like to start off by welcoming the 101st Airborne Division's 
2nd Squadron, 17th Calvary Regiment back stateside following a 9-month 
rotational deployment to Korea. We are so happy to have them back home.
  In more exciting news out of Fort Campbell, this Thursday, SGM 
Veronica Knapp will become the first woman to serve as a command 
sergeant major of a U.S. Army division. She will assume responsibility 
as the senior enlisted adviser of the 101st Airborne Division.
  On behalf of the entire Tennessee delegation, I offer my 
congratulations and wish her success in all that is yet to come.
  The servicemembers stationed at Fort Campbell have really had a very 
busy past year. Starting last March, we began deploying soldiers to 
help with COVID-19 response operations across the Northeast, including 
members from the 501st Medical Company, the 531st Hospital Center, and 
the 101st Division Sustainment Brigade.
  Boston and New York City were among the most severely affected areas 
in the country. And if you ask the healthcare workers and city 
officials in those areas if Tennessee servicemembers made a difference, 
they will tell you, yes, without a doubt.
  Last year, many of our Tennessee National Guard members also joined 
the fight against COVID-19. The 164th Airlift Wing transported 
desperately needed PPE all the way from Italy to healthcare workers 
across the entire country. The 118th ISR Group, along with five other 
Air National Guard targeting units, produced over 70 percent of the 
U.S. Air Force's targeting materials, all while providing continuity to 
Activity-Duty units.
  I want to keep bragging on our Guard members because they really have 
made an impact, especially when it comes to getting testing and vaccine 
centers up and running. They set up more static vaccine sites than any 
other State. As of March of this year, they have set up double the 
number of sites that were running in the next most successful State. 
Job well done.
  They directly helped more than 1 million Tennesseans stay healthy 
through the pandemic. It was a great effort, and we thank them for 
that.
  I am sorry to say that the pandemic wasn't the only natural disaster 
Tennesseans had to deal with over the past year. But when tornados 
destroyed multiple counties across West and Middle Tennessee, the 
National Guard was right there to help. And when blizzards shut down 
half the State, the Guard kept water flowing in Memphis, repaired 
communications infrastructure for first responders in Rutherford 
County, and found shelter for displaced families in Lynchburg and 
Manchester.
  When you are on the outside looking in on a natural disaster, the 
last thing you want to hear is that local officials had to call in the 
National Guard. But I will tell you, when you are sitting in the 
aftermath, there is no more hopeful sight than a vehicle full of 
guardsmen pulling into town ready to help.
  That peace of mind, of course, comes at a cost. Our servicemembers go 
where they are told to go and do the jobs they are told to do without 
hesitation. Why? Because they have accepted that the cost of freedom is 
more important than the freedom they sacrificed when they put on the 
uniform. Their families have accepted this too. And when you are a 
military family, the uniform comes first. This is why every year when 
we re-up defense funding, we put special focus on military families and 
their needs.
  For example, 2 years ago, we established a pilot program to offer 
professional licensed reciprocity for military spouses who want to 
continue working

[[Page S3325]]

after moving across State lines. Last year, we increased funding for 
that program.
  We also continued our support for the Preservation of the Force and 
Families Program, which helps special operators process the 
aftereffects of their missions.
  Last month, the Presiding Officer and I introduced a bill called the 
Military Hunger Prevention Act. This is an incredibly important piece 
of legislation that would create a basic needs allowance for low-income 
military families.

  The reason this is so important is that existing benefits programs 
like SNAP and free school lunches include housing allowances and other 
military benefits in revenue calculations. Although it is obvious that 
this only creates the appearance of higher income, the programs aren't 
designed to allow an exception. Once we pass this bill--and I am sure 
that we will--these families will be able to use their allowances to 
buy groceries instead of relying on food pantries to put dinner on the 
table.
  This is what we should all be thinking about during Military 
Appreciation Month--renewing the commitment we have made to take care 
of our servicemembers both on and off the battlefield.
  We need to ask ourselves: What are we doing to meet their practical 
needs? What are we doing to support their families? What are we doing 
to right unintended wrongs?
  It is the most important way we can recognize their extraordinary 
service to our Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                  Nomination Of Chiquita Brooks-Lasure

  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, the Senate is now debating the nomination 
of Chiquita Brooks-LaSure to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
Services.
  This is clearly one of the most important healthcare jobs in America. 
Ms. Brooks-LaSure brings decades of health policy experience to the 
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and I think it would be 
fair to say that she has worked on healthcare from just about every 
angle short of scrubbing into the operating room herself. I am going to 
talk, in a minute, about her qualifications, but I also want, as we 
start this discussion, to recognize that this is a job that requires 
urgent, hands-on professionalism--exactly the kind Ms. Brooks-LaSure 
brings to this.
  We are, obviously, still working through enormous challenges on the 
COVID-19 pandemic. There are efforts by colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle on healthcare, and we, in particular, on this side want to expand 
healthcare coverage, bring down the cost of prescription medicine, and 
bring the Medicare guarantee into the 21st century. The American people 
need a chief of Medicare and Medicaid as soon as possible, and blocking 
this nomination slows down important work that needs to be done. 
Senators on the other side have objected to moving forward with the 
nomination. So I am going to talk for just a few minutes about these 
concerns--but, first, a little bit more about Ms. Brooks-LaSure.
  Starting out, she worked at the Office of Management and Budget on 
Medicaid policy and the CHIP program, the Children's Health Insurance 
Program. So she was, long ago, focused on trying to improve healthcare 
for the millions of Americans who every single day walk an economic 
tightrope in balancing the food bill against the fuel bill and the fuel 
bill against healthcare costs. She was there for them.
  She then moved to the House Ways and Means Committee as a senior 
staff member. She helped to write portions of the Affordable Care Act 
dealing with expanding coverage and updating the Medicare guarantee.
  When the Affordable Care Act became law, she went to Health and Human 
Services, and there she played an important role in implementing the 
law. She was the leader in the effort to create marketplaces for health 
insurance with strong, built-in consumer protections. She has been a 
leader when it comes to defending and expanding women's healthcare 
under the Affordable Care Act and other essential programs. After 
leaving HHS, she went to the private sector and continued to work on 
policies that expanded coverage and made healthcare more affordable.
  Ms. Brooks-LaSure has the qualifications, the experience, and the 
know-how to run Medicare and Medicaid, and there are absolutely no 
questions about it.
  Now, our colleague from Texas, Senator Cornyn, has raised objections 
to moving the nomination forward. His objections relate to a decision 
by the Biden administration to rescind a Medicaid policy waiver that 
the Trump administration rushed to grant the State of Texas in mid-
January. There are a few key points Members ought to understand about 
this issue.
  First, nothing is going to change for health providers and patients 
in Texas for more than a year as a result of this decision. That means 
there is plenty of time to work out a solution that doesn't get rushed 
and follows the right process with public comment.
  Second, Ms. Brooks-LaSure had nothing to do with the decision that 
Senator Cornyn is unhappy about. She wasn't on the job when it was 
made.
  Third, she made clear in her Finance Committee hearing that she is 
committed to working on a bipartisan basis with State officials, and 
she said that to Senator Cornyn and to other Republican members on this 
issue as well. She has the track record and the experience to get that 
done.
  I want to state again to our colleague from Texas and to every Member 
of the Senate: I probably spent as much time as any Member of the 
Senate working on the issue that the Senator from Texas is concerned 
about, and that is the process for granting waivers. I authored what is 
called section 1332 of the Affordable Care Act that was designed to say 
that progressive States that, for example, wanted to pursue a public 
option or aggregate Medicare and Medicaid money would have a chance to 
do it as long as they would adhere to the guardrails. Conservative 
States that sought to try their own approaches based on their ideas of 
a conservative approach to healthcare could do it as long as they met 
the coverage requirements of the Affordable Care Act.

  I want to state again to Senator Cornyn, as I did in the Senate 
Finance Committee, that I am going to work very closely with him, after 
we confirm this nominee, to address the issues that he discussed in the 
committee that have concerned him.
  To every Member who has issues with respect to waivers, I want each 
to know that there will be bipartisan interest in trying to bring 
people in their States together and adhering to the ideas in the 
Affordable Care Act, which states that States are free to pursue their 
own ideas for expanding coverage as long as they stay within the 
guardrails of the program.
  We understand that Democrats and Republicans aren't going to agree on 
every health policy question. What I do know is that Ms. Brooks-LaSure 
is going to be the kind of CMS Administrator who can bring two sides 
together exactly as we envisioned in the Affordable Care Act with the 
waiver law and exactly as I have committed to working with Senator 
Cornyn on.
  The Finance Committee has demonstrated that it can work together on 
big issues. In 2017, the committee passed the CHRONIC Care Act, which 
was a fundamental transformation of Medicare.
  I have told my colleagues that back when I was director of the Gray 
Panthers, Medicare was about acute care. There was Part A, which was 
for hospitals, and Part B, which was for doctors. That was it. That was 
Medicare. When I taught gerontology, the first question on an exam was, 
What is the difference between Part A and Part B? That isn't Medicare 
anymore. Medicare, today, is primarily about chronic disease: cancer 
and diabetes and heart disease and stroke and chronic pulmonary 
disease.
  The Finance Committee wrote the CHRONIC Care Act on a bipartisan 
basis. At that point, Chairman Hatch was chairman of the committee, and 
I was the ranking Democrat. We worked in a bipartisan way, but the 
Trump administration, after the retirement of Chairman Hatch, basically 
put everything on the back burner.
  When we confirm Ms. Brooks-LaSure--and I am convinced that she is 
going to be confirmed--she will work with Democrats and Republicans to

[[Page S3326]]

make sure we are updating the Medicare guarantee for this century. In 
particular, what that involves is making sure that there are more 
opportunities for those who receive traditional Medicare to get the 
benefits of the CHRONIC Care Act. Already, the CHRONIC Care Act works 
well for what is called Medicare Advantage. We need to do more to make 
sure it is available for those who receive traditional Medicare.
  Now, there are other issues the Finance Committee is working on that 
Ms. Brooks-LaSure will play an important role in--one being improving 
mental healthcare because mental healthcare has gotten short shrift in 
America for far too long. We know that Americans feel like they are 
getting mugged when they walk into a pharmacy and go to the window to 
get their prescription medicines. Look, for example, at insulin. 
Insulin prices have gone up twelvefold in recent years. The drug is not 
12 times better. It is the same drug, but they are getting clobbered 
because the pharmaceutical companies can get away with it. So those are 
the kinds of practices that Ms. Brooks-LaSure is going to take on, and 
she is going to do it in a bipartisan way.
  The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is right at the center 
of taking on these and other important healthcare challenges. This 
critical Agency--one of the most important places in American 
healthcare--needs a leader, and it needs one now. She is, in my view, 
an excellent nominee. She is going to work with both sides here in the 
Senate, including on the issue our colleague Senator Cornyn has raised. 
I want to restate my interest in working with both Ms. Brooks-LaSure 
and Senator Cornyn on this matter my colleague from Texas has raised.
  We are going to be voting in a couple of minutes, colleagues, and I 
urge a strong vote for an eminently qualified nominee, Ms. Chiquita 
Brooks-LaSure.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________