[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 101 (Tuesday, June 14, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2931-S2935]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CELEBRATING THE 245TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CREATION OF THE FLAG OF THE
UNITED STATES AND EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, this is one of the more enjoyable things of
being a Senator, especially when I have some friends in from Southern
Indiana up in the Gallery to see what we do here.
I rise today to offer a resolution expressing support for the Pledge
of Allegiance as an expression of patriotism and honoring the 245th
anniversary of the introduction of our United States flag.
Today we celebrate Flag Day, which was first established over 100
years ago by President Woodrow Wilson. As we pause to recognize all
that our flag represents, let us also honor those who have sacrificed
everything to defend it.
In 2002, Senator Tom Daschle raised a similar resolution with
unanimous support from the Senate. It passed on the floor uneventfully.
Today, I ask this body to reaffirm our support for the Pledge of
Allegiance.
I also rise to honor a fellow Hoosier who knew the innate value of
the Pledge of Allegiance to civic education. In 1969, Red Skelton, the
American entertainer who was well-known for the program ``The Red
Skelton Hour,'' wrote a speech on the importance of the pledge.
Reflecting on his time in Vincennes, IN, he spoke about the values
instilled by one of his high school teachers.
After the performance of the speech, CBS received 200,000 requests
for copies. The speech would go on to be sold as a single by Columbia
Records and performed at the White House for President Nixon. I think
it would honor Mr. Skelton's memory and the importance of the Pledge of
Allegiance if it were recited today on the Senate floor in the words of
Mr. Red Skelton. I have done this 2 prior years too. This should never
get old for anyone here or the American public in general.
When I was a small boy in Vincennes, [Indiana,] I heard, I
think, one of the most outstanding speeches I ever heard in
my life. I think it compares with the Sermon on the Mount,
Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, and Socrates' Speech to the
Students.
We had just finished reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, and
he [Mr. Lasswell, the Principal of Vincennes High School]
called us all together, and he says, ``Uh, boys and girls, I
have been listening to you recite the Pledge of Allegiance
all semester, and it seems that it has become monotonous to
you. Or, could it be, you do not understand the meaning of
[[Page S2932]]
each word? If I may, I would like to recite the pledge, and
give you a definition of each word:
I--Me, an individual; a committee of one.
Pledge--Dedicate all of my worldly good to give without
self-pity.
Allegiance--My love and my devotion.
To the Flag--Our standard. ``Old Glory''; a symbol of
courage. And wherever she waves, there is respect, because
your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts ``Freedom is
everybody's job.''
Of the United--That means we have all come together.
States--Individual communities that have united into 48
great states
Remember the time when they didn't.
Forty-eight individual communities with pride and dignity
and purpose; all divided by imaginary boundaries, yet united
to a common cause, and that's love of country--
Of America.
And to the Republic--a Republic: A sovereign state in which
power is invested into the representatives chosen by the
people to govern; [us] and the government is the people; and
it's from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to
the people.
For which it Stands.
One Nation--Meaning ``so blessed by God.''
[Under God]
Indivisible--Incapable of being divided.
With Liberty--Which is freedom; the right of power for one
to live his own life without fears, threats, or any sort of
retaliation.
And Justice--The principle and qualities of dealing fairly
with others.
For All--For All. That means, boys and girls, it's as much
your country as it is mine.
Afterward, Mr. Lasswell asked the students to recite the Pledge of
Allegiance together, with newfound appreciation for the words.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic, for which it stands; one
nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Mr. Skelton concluded his speech by saying:
Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our
country, and two words have been added to the Pledge of
Allegiance: ``Under God.'' Wouldn't it be a pity if someone
said, ``That is a prayer''--and that it be eliminated from
our schools, too?
Just as those students that day, Mr. Red Skelton included,
recommitted to the meaning of the words of the Pledge of Allegiance, I
call upon the U.S. Senate to recommit to these words as well.
There are times today that the words of the Pledge of Allegiance are
tossed around without care. Other times, they are altered to remove
what today is deemed offensive or antiquated. But Americans should not
misuse or abuse our Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge of Allegiance is
meant to remind Americans of our guiding principles and inspire
adherence to those ideas which make our country great: equality under
the law, recognized rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness. This is why today, on National Flag Day, I am requesting
unanimous consent from my colleagues that my resolution expressing
support for the Pledge of Allegiance is passed.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
consideration of S. Res. 671, submitted earlier today; further, I ask
unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be
agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and
laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 671) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
(The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in today's Record
under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
Mr. BRAUN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. BRAUN. 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. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 3967
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, as we know, the Senate is currently
considering the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our PACT
Act. This bipartisan legislation is the most comprehensive toxic
exposure bill ever considered for veterans.
Passing toxic exposure legislation has been a priority for Senator
Tester, the chairman of the committee, and for me, the ranking member,
and we wanted to do it this Congress, and we are close to accomplishing
that.
Last Congress, we were able to deliver landmark mental health
legislation for veterans, and this Congress, we were committed to
passing long-lasting solutions that will reform the VA's process by
which veterans who were exposed to burn pits and Agent Orange receive
their benefits and healthcare.
About a month ago, Senator Tester and I announced a bipartisan
agreement and introduced the historic Heath Robinson PACT Act. Part of
the agreement between the chairman and me was that two amendments would
be considered for this legislation.
I offered an amendment to strike the creation of a fund which would
classify over $116 billion in discretionary costs associated with the
bill as entitlement spending. I believe that this untested and unique
way of classifying spending lessens congressional oversight at a time
of massive debt and deficits, and it sets a bad precedent.
Senator Lee has an amendment requiring the Secretary to use science
when evaluating presumptions established in the bill. That amendment
has been filed.
Senator Ernst has an amendment requiring the Secretary to certify
that with the resources and authorities provided through this bill,
there won't be a negative consequence for veterans in the system.
There are at least three amendments proposing to offset the cost of
the bill or at least a portion thereof with spending reductions
elsewhere.
I am hopeful that in the days ahead, before final passage of this
bill, we will let our colleagues be heard through an amendment process,
pass or fail.
I have also hoped that the two amendments that I expected to be able
to offer would be made in order. That hasn't been the case to date, and
therefore I ask unanimous consent that it be made in order for the
following amendments to be made pending to the substitute amendment No.
5051 by their sponsors or their designees: One, the Ernst amendment,
Secretary of VA certification, No. 5072; two, the Lee amendment to
modify the authority to create presumptions, No. 5048; the Johnson
amendment to pay for COVID money, amendment No. 5055; the Paul
amendment, to pay for this legislation from USAID, No. 5060; the
Blackburn community care amendment, No. 5075; my amendment, the
community care amendment, No. 5064; my amendment to strike section 805,
No. 5063; the Marshall amendment on collective bargaining, No. 5071;
the Murkowski amendment on appraisals for housing loans, No. 5069; and
the Inhofe amendment concerning Camp Lejeune, No. 5094. I further ask
that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation
with the Republican leader, the Senate vote in relation to these
amendments in the order listed; further, that upon disposition of the
amendments listed, all postcloture time on the substitute amendment No.
5051 be expired and the remaining pending amendments be withdrawn, with
the exception of the substitute amendment No. 5051, as amended, if
amended, and that the Senate vote on adoption of the substitute
amendment, as amended, if amended; and finally, that upon disposition
of amendment No. 5051, as amended, if amended, the cloture motion with
respect to the underlying bill, H.R. 3967, be withdrawn, the bill, as
amended, if amended, be read a third time, and the Senate vote on
passage of the bill, as amended, if amended, with 60 affirmative votes
required for passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Montana.
Mr. TESTER. Reserving the right to object, we are here on the cusp of
doing something that really tells the fighting men and women who serve
in our military all around the world that we have got your back.
We are here because of what I would say is a great working
relationship between the ranking member, Senator Moran, and myself. As
I said in the VA Committee earlier, that relationship is going to
continue regardless, and the reason is because, in this place, there is
something that is missing, and it is called trust. And I trust Senator
Moran. We have been through this for the last year and a half and even
longer.
[[Page S2933]]
When you were chairman of the committee, many of the bills that are
in this package, you oversaw their passage out of committee.
But because negotiations continue and because I still believe, even
though this process is very broken--we both know that--I still believe
that we are going to be able to come to something that both of us can
agree on with amendments through our leadership--by the way, we would
agree on something anyway--but through our leadership. That is why I am
objecting to your motion.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I would conclude by encouraging the
chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs to use his
substantial level of influence with the leaders that he described as
necessary to approve the consideration of these amendments.
He speaks of the word ``trust,'' and I have great trust in his
ability to accomplish the desired outcome that I have.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, may I ask the ranking member of the
Veterans' Affairs Committee a question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Through the Presiding Officer, you are allowed
to do that.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, are you asking me to throw my weight
around?
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, may I make an inquiry of the Senator from
Montana through the Chair?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, you may.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, if I answered the question, Mr. Chairman,
would that be considered derogatory?
Perhaps it is a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I think in Montana, it is considered a
compliment.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, 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. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Rhode Island.
U.S. Supreme Court
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here for the 15th time in my
series of ``Scheme'' speeches to call attention to the rightwing
donors' long-planned scheme to capture and control our Supreme Court.
What I will talk about today is that scheme's donor-funded doctrine
factory and a case in which the ``Court that dark money built'' could
weaponize dangerous, concocted doctrines to power up polluters and
threaten the basic function of government.
Before I get into this, let me say that I detest and condemn violence
or threatened violence against members of the Court, and I object even
to protesters making a racket in Justices' neighborhoods. There is a
lot to be angry about, but the solution is through democracy and laws,
not violence and noise. The capture of the Court by secret and special
interests is deadly serious under our laws, and we have to respond
seriously under our laws. Neighborhood noise and violent threats don't
help.
Let's remember that all three Trump Supreme Court Justices were
actually chosen and then campaigned for by a dark money donor
apparatus. Remember, the whole point of the scheme is to capture the
Court so it will deliver big wins for the big rightwing donors, no
matter how unpopular or radical those wins are. Remember that the donor
elite behind the scheme spent hundreds of millions of dollars on an
apparatus to capture the courts. It plotted for decades to seize this
power and set up a system to get its hand-picked, extremist nominees
onto the Bench. It instructs those Justices with coordinated flotillas
of amicus briefs so the Justices know how they are supposed to rule. It
is quite an operation.
But none of that works--none of that works if judges are following
the law as it is. Existing legal precedents are a problem for the
scheme. So, to accomplish its mission, a radical deconstruction of our
American laws, the big donor elite need to destroy decades of legal
precedent.
We got a preview in the looming effort, shown by the Alito leaked
draft opinion, to destroy precedent protecting women's right to decide
about abortion and relocate that right from women to State
legislatures. That is just the scheme's opening act, a sop to one
segment of its social issues base. The scheme is out to deconstruct
American law and destroy established precedent across many areas of the
law.
Now, if you are out to deconstruct American law and replace it with
what the big donors want, you need some intellectual weaponry. You
don't just need Justices who will do what you ask, you need legal
theories. You need to give the Justices you put on the Court the
intellectual artillery--the demolition theories--that will help them
destroy the precedents and deconstruct our legal system.
So that is a problem.
But when you are spending more than half a billion dollars on such a
scheme, you can find solutions. And sure enough, rightwing donor
interests found solutions. It took time, but the whole scheme took
time. It took a lot of money, but the whole scheme took a lot of money.
It took patience and planning, but what a payoff when you succeed.
And now it is payday.
The first thing you do is erect an array of legal think tanks, phony
institutes, the hothouses in which the deconstruction theories are
grown; the factories, if you will, where doctrines are crafted,
reverse-engineered from the results the big donors want so that
willing, complicit Justices have the ideological weaponry for
deconstruction of the law.
These think tanks do a couple of things. First, they nurture
rightwing legal scholars to formulate bogus legal doctrines. They pay
them comfortable salaries. They grant them nice titles. They cover
their trips to conferences and symposia with fellow hothouse scholars.
The whole thing apes regular academia, but this academia-resembling
performance has a very different mission: It has deliverables.
Second, they systematically cheerlead for their new legal doctrines.
They create an echo chamber of approval for their cultivated fringe
ideas. Once the hothouse conjures a fringe idea, the hothouse bounces
it among other so-called scholars and through other anonymously funded
affiliate groups and through law school debate clubs and conservative
conferences--also funded by secretive donors--and into flotillas of
scripted amicus curiae briefs and ultimately, the prize, into legal
opinions. They create a legitimization process, and of course they
concoct or retool the desirable theories.
The legal theories are actually pretty easy to come up with. You
reverse-engineer. You start with what big donor interests want and then
work backward. And what lots of big donors want--especially fossil
fuel companies--is to weaken and disable government regulation.
Government regulators stop all sorts of harmful corporate practices:
pollution of our air, water, and climate; dangerous factory floor
working conditions; crooked schemes that cheat investors; snake oil
medications that don't cure disease; unsafe products; insurance
policies that don't pay. The list is long. Demolishing that protective
network of regulations protecting America's health, safety, and
financial well-being is a scheme priority, and the destruction begins
by pejoratively naming the Agencies whose work protects us the
``administrative state.''
There are many of these doctrine-growing hothouses. Two examples are
the Cato Institute, originally founded by the Koch brothers, and the C.
Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State at George
Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School, of course. Both of these
groups are funded to pump out and legitimize anti-regulatory fringe
theories and talking points.
Think of them as factories for ideological artillery designed for the
demolition of Federal Agencies' authority, particularly over polluters.
What do they manufacture? Well, the concocted doctrines fall into a
few buckets. There is the so-called unitary executive theory, cooked up
to argue
[[Page S2934]]
that safeguards set in place by Congress to protect Federal Agencies
against political interference are unconstitutional.
Now, if you are a big donor and you paid big bucks to get your man in
the White House, you want political interference by your guy in
regulatory decisions.
Congress built safeguards against that for a very good reason. But a
captured Court could disable Congress's ability to defend the Agencies
that Congress itself created. This unitary executive legal theory was
the pet theory of the Reagan administration. It was thoroughly debunked
by serious scholars and rejected initially even by the Supreme Court.
But the rightwing Court-capture apparatus has persistently kept this
theory a Federalist Society cornerstone and diligently packed the Court
with new Justices more amenable to this nonsense.
Other concocted doctrines also target Agencies. The so-called
nondelegation doctrine is so radical and meritless that the Supreme
Court dismissed it a century ago, except for rare cases that no longer
exist where Congress might give Agencies power with no direction
whatsoever.
This nondelegation idea has been retooled in the doctrine factories
to target Agency regulation generally. Under this doctrine as retooled,
the power is removed from Congress and given to unelected courts to
decide how questions should be assigned by Congress to Federal
Agencies. This gives big, regulated industries a big weapon to attack
the Federal Government's ability to regulate problems that they cause,
at a minimum allowing industries to tie public protection regulations
up in years, even decades, of litigation.
Federalist Society Justices on the Court long clamored for the
nondelegation doctrine, and as new Federalist Society Justices get
added to the Court, it becomes more probable. Certainly the dark money
front groups that provide instruction and encouragement to the
Federalist Society Justices--they are in full clamor, using amicus
curiae briefs to signal their wishes to the captured Court.
On now to yet another hothouse-grown doctrine, the major questions
doctrine, which provides a similar weapons platform to assault public
safety regulations. Where the nondelegation doctrine would require
Congress to set more specific regulatory standards for Agencies to
police, the major questions doctrine would let the unelected Court
determine that some questions are just too big to regulate--too big to
regulate at all.
Again, at a minimum, that lets big industries snarl Agency
protections up in litigation. At worst, it forces Congress into
detailed, complex questions that Congress already determined--already
determined--should better be handled by expert Agencies.
Perhaps I should mention here how hard the Federalist Society
Justices have worked to create avenues of corporate political
influence, including anonymous, unlimited, corporate political
spending, allowing corporate interests to blockade action in Congress;
but while it is relevant here, that is a longer story for another day.
All of these concocted doctrines share the premise that Congress may
not deploy Agency regulation against certain problems and that the
power to grant Agencies authority to regulate in certain areas is,
instead, to be decided by unelected courts--in present circumstances,
decided by a captured Supreme Court with Members installed by big
special interest money.
What could possibly go wrong?
All of these concocted doctrines overlook the robust oversight of
Federal Agencies by the people's Representatives in Congress and by
courts, tasked by Congress, with applying the Administrative Procedure
Act. If an Agency were to go rogue, Congress can immediately intervene.
Congress can reverse the decision of the Agency. Congress can change
the underlying law the Agency enforces. Congress can redirect, defund,
or even eliminate the errant Agency. Moreover, if Agencies don't follow
the law as Congress directed or if the Agencies behave illogically or
unfairly or don't give evidence proper consideration, there are avenues
of legal relief in court.
But the donors behind the scheme don't want relief from improper or
misguided Agency action. They want relief from lawful, legitimate, and
correct Agency action. This is a power grab by regulated interests
using the Court, and they can do it because of the scheme. It is not a
bug that these doctrines threaten harm to an array of basic government
functions; it is their purpose.
Let's go back to what the rightwing, corporate-funded propaganda
machine likes to deride as the ``administrative state''--their little
code word. What has really gone on in these Agencies? I will tell you
what has gone on.
Over nonstop quarreling by big special interests, regulatory Agencies
made life better. They made drinking water safer. They cleaned up
smokestacks. They put airbags in cars and required better seatbelts.
They protected us from contaminated food. They made medication safer
and more effective--no more snake oil mysteries. They made financial
markets safer places for retirement funds and college savings plans to
grow. They made it harder for stockjobbers to sucker innocent
investors. They required insurance policies to actually pay when an
insured risk occurs. They put an end to people dying from disasters
like boiler explosions that used to be a regular thing. Americans live
longer; highways are no longer carnage; products are safer; markets are
stronger; and the American economy is more robust. So, whenever you
hear the phrase ``administrative state,'' it should ring in your head a
little alarm bell that special interest mischief is afoot, which brings
me to the ruling expected from the Supreme Court in a case called West
Virginia v. EPA.
The fossil fuel interests behind the case are challenging the Federal
Government's power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing
coal-fired power plants. Put simply, they want to make it harder to
fight climate change. I can't think of a more important protection for
the American people than a livable planet, and I can't think of a
Member of Congress who has done more work to achieve those protections
than the Presiding Officer, but the fossil fuel industry is desperate
to continue to pollute for free.
The first thing to know about this case is that there is no case. The
Constitution requires ``a case or controversy''--that is the language
in the Constitution: ``a case or controversy'' before the Court can
intervene--and, here, there is no case because there is no Agency rule
to challenge. The Trump administration's rule, which was a sop to
polluters, was thrown out--gone. The Obama-era rule is not being
pursued--gone. Biden's EPA has announced that it is formulating a new,
different rule that it has not yet produced. It is not out. There is no
rule in place right now.
That does not seem to bother the scheme's new donor-selected
majority. A few Republican States, bolstered and probably directed by
an armada of rightwing, dark-money front groups, sued to challenge the
EPA's authority, and the captured Court jumped right in.
Think about that for a moment.
With no actual rule to review, the Court is, apparently, going to
decide this case based on what the Biden administration might do or
issue some general observations about the EPA. Where I come from, there
is a name for that. It is called an advisory opinion, and our Supreme
Court is forbidden to do that under our Constitution.
This is actually a big deal at the heart of the separation of powers,
but the Federalist Society Justices, packed onto the Court with fossil
fuel dark money, are on a mission to deconstruct the administrative
state. So why let the Constitution get in the way? Just throw out more
precedent about case or controversy. What is one more smashed precedent
in the captured Court's cascade of precedent demolition? The donors
don't care. They are not finicky. They want results.
Fossil fuel is the political 800-pound gorilla in this country. The
industry spent decades blocking climate action in Congress. It lurked
behind this web of climate denial front groups that sowed false doubt
about climate science. It was their job to mischaracterize the science.
It is behind what watchdog group Influence Map calls the biggest
climate-obstructing trade organization in Washington--the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce. Boom.
[[Page S2935]]
It maintains its own trade group hitmen, like the American Petroleum
Institute. It funnels secret money by the tens of millions into
Republican super-PACs and other secret, partisan political spending
fronts in a not-so-hostile takeover of the Republican Party, and it
wrote some of the biggest checks to pay for the scheme, funneled
through dark-money conduits like DonorsTrust and the Judicial Crisis
Network.
When I say we now have the Court that dark money built, it is
probably more accurate to say that we now have the Court that dark
fossil fuel money built. So watch out for the six-Justice supermajority
that is poised to rule in this no case ``case.''
It is no surprise that the amici--the amicus curiae, the so-called
friends of the Court--gathered in this case read like a who's who of
fossil fuel polluter front groups. The Competitive Enterprise
Institute, for instance, produces hothouse attacks on the EPA's
authority, and is funded by ExxonMobil, Murray Energy, the American
Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute,
and the Koch brothers' political groups. Fossil fuel front groups, as
amici and litigants, sing a harmonious chorus of ``unitary executive''
and ``nondelegation'' and ``major question''--all concocted doctrines
targeting the administrative state they so resent.
Back before the takeover, here is what the Court said in a case
called Mistretta.
The Court said this:
In our increasingly complex society, replete with ever
changing and more technical problems, Congress simply cannot
do its job absent an ability to delegate power under broad
general directives.
That is the language of the Court:
In our increasingly complex society, replete with ever
changing and more technical problems, Congress simply cannot
do its job absent an ability to delegate power under broad
general directives.
That is the precedent of the Court. That is the law of the land, and
it is the law that special interests sent these Justices to the Court
to deconstruct. So get ready.
To be continued.
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. HASSAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Peters). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Remembering Julie Beckett
Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the incredible life
and legacy of Julie Beckett, a champion for individuals who experience
disabilities and for their families.
In 1978, Julie's daughter Katie was born, and 4 months later, Katie
contracted a brain infection that left her paralyzed and on a
ventilator. After 2 years of living in a hospital, Katie's family had
reached the limit on their health insurance policy and applied for
support through Medicaid but were told that Medicaid would not cover
at-home care.
Julie and her husband, Mark, knew they did not want their daughter
growing up in a hospital, especially when she could receive the care
that she needed at home while also being with her loved ones.
Faced with uncertainty and with Federal officials who would not make
an exception, Julie reached out to her Congressman. Julie noted that
making this exception for her daughter would not only be good for her
family but also that keeping her at home rather than at a hospital
would cost the government far less money.
Julie's advocacy worked. Because she made the choice to speak up and
share her story, Congress passed and President Reagan signed into law
an exception to Medicaid rules that enabled Julie's family and many
others to care for their loved ones at home.
Julie's work has had a profound impact on not just her own family but
countless others, including my own. My son Ben experiences severe
physical disabilities, and because of Julie's advocacy, he could grow
up at home and with family. And because he was able to live at home,
Ben had the opportunity to go to school, to learn, and make friends in
our community.
The terrible reality is that before Julie, many children grew up in
hospitals or in institutionalized care, instead of surrounded by the
love and care of their families, siblings, and neighbors.
But my family's story is not unique. In the decades since, what is
now known as the Katie Beckett waiver has changed hundreds of thousands
of lives. More than half a million children have received these waivers
and have been able to live, grow, and thrive at home.
Julie's story is an example of how one person can make a true
difference in our democracy. And even after her successful work in
securing this significant exception for Medicaid, Julie kept fighting
for children who experienced disabilities. She helped lead a charge to
expand coverage and fought against attempts to repeal the Affordable
Care Act. And critically, she worked with families throughout the
country to show them how they could be advocates as well.
Julie passed away last month, but her legacy will live on in the
lives that she has changed and the advocacy that she helped to inspire.
I am profoundly grateful for her work, and I join with people across
the country in committing to carrying on her legacy of fighting to
fully include people with disabilities in every facet of American life.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Order of Procedure
Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to
be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the
Republican leader, and notwithstanding rule XXII, it be in order for
Senator Paul or his designee to make a motion to proceed to Calendar
No. 397, S. Con. Res. 41 on Wednesday, June 15, 2022; further, if the
motion to proceed is agreed to, the Senate resume consideration of
Calendar No. 388, H.R. 3967, postcloture, and that upon disposition of
the Calendar No. 388, H.R. 3967, the Senate resume consideration of
Calendar No. 397, S. Con. Res. 41.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Unanimous Consent--Executive Calendar
Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding rule XXII, at a time to be determined by the majority
leader, in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed
to executive session to consider Calendar No. 925, Alan M. Leventhal,
to be Ambassador to the Kingdom of Denmark; that there be 10 minutes
for debate equally divided in the usual form on the nomination; that
upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on the
nomination without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that
any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; that
the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that
the Senate resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________