[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 58 (Thursday, March 30, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1063-S1066]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       FIRE GRANTS AND SAFETY ACT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will read the bill by 
title.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 870) to amend the Federal Fire Prevention and 
     Control Act of 1974 to authorize appropriations for the 
     United States Fire Administration and firefighter assistance 
     grant programs.


                            Amendment No. 58

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I 
ask that it be reported by number.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 58.

  The amendment is as follows:

                  (Purpose: To add an effective date)

       At the end add the following:

     SEC. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect on the date that is 1 day after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.

                           Order of Business

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 11:45 
a.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 
69, Richard R. Verma, of Maryland, to be Deputy Secretary of State for 
Management and Resources; that there be 5 minutes for debate, equally 
divided in the usual form, on the nomination; that upon the use or 
yielding back of time, the Senate vote without intervening action or 
debate on the nomination; that if the nomination is confirmed, the 
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the 
President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and the 
Senate then resume legislative session.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                            Border Security

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, when I took the gavel as chair of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee, one of my first goals and objectives was to 
restore the committee's oversight role.
  Since the beginning of the 117th Congress, we have kept a close watch 
on those Agencies in the executive branch which are within our 
jurisdiction. We have held oversight hearings on the Justice 
Department, the FBI, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons, to mention a 
few. This last Tuesday, we continued that tradition with a second 
oversight hearing on the Department of Homeland Security.
  It is worth noting that, under the previous administration, the 
previous President, the Homeland Security Secretary only appeared 
before our committee one time in 4 years. So we were glad to welcome 
Secretary Mayorkas back to the hearing room and learn about the work 
that he is undertaking to keep America safe.
  As I mentioned on Tuesday, I think Secretary Mayorkas has one of the 
hardest jobs in Washington. The Department of Homeland Security is 
responsible for defending our Nation from a wide range of threats from 
domestic terrorism, narcotics trafficking, the climate crisis, and even 
cyber attacks. But, despite this broad mandate, our discussion kept 
returning to one subject last Tuesday: America's broken immigration 
system.
  It was interesting to hear the Republican Senators on my committee 
being critical of the job that Mr. Mayorkas is doing as head of the DHS 
while, at the same time, it has been over 30 years since this body, the 
U.S. Senate, has enacted legislation to upgrade and modernize our 
immigration system--30 years. Trust me. The world has changed 
dramatically in that period, but the Senate has refused to keep pace.
  It is easy to criticize Secretary Mayorkas about our border 
situation, and he faces some amazing challenges. But let's face it. We 
share in the responsibility for this situation, and we certainly share 
in the burden of coming up with solutions that help.
  For years, I have tried my best to pass appropriations reform. There 
was a bipartisan moment 10 years ago when the so-called Gang of Eight 
Senators--four Democrats, four Republicans, and I was included in that 
group--sat down and wrote a comprehensive immigration reform package. I 
think it was pretty good. In fact, it was so good that it passed on the 
floor of the U.S. Senate with over 60 votes in favor of it.
  We had our fingers crossed and sent it across the Rotunda over to the 
Republican-controlled House, and, for 2 years, they refused to even 
consider it, even call it for a debate, or even offer their own 
amendments. They did nothing--nothing--and we are paying the price for 
that today.
  So here is the question after this week's hearing: Are we going to 
keep pointing our fingers and mugging for the cameras or are we going 
to come together to fix our immigration system?
  I am ready. I certainly hope the Members of the House are ready. But 
we need a bipartisan consensus to get that done.


      Restoring America's Health Care Workforce and Readiness Act

  On another topic, Mr. President, it is a problem I am going to 
discuss that affects roughly 100 million Americans. In the wealthiest 
Nation in the world, nearly one in three people in this Nation lives in 
an area with too few doctors.
  You know the story in your home State of Georgia. I know it in 
Illinois. I have seen it. Whenever I visit a clinic or a hospital 
outside of Chicago, I hear the same thing: Our healthcare system is 
understaffed, underfunded, and underequipped to address the health 
needs of American families.
  The greatest healthcare system in the world is suffering from serious 
shortages and deficiencies. The pandemic brought this to light. It may 
not have broken us, but it showed us where our health system is broken.
  Over the past 3 years, our doctors, nurses, and other healthcare 
providers have been pushed to the brink, and, as a result, nearly one 
out of every five healthcare workers has quit their jobs. Think about 
that: 20 percent quit their jobs.
  These departures have taken a massive toll in the healthcare of 
America. In the years ahead, as our population ages, our needs grow, 
and more providers leave the profession. Those challenges will get 
worse unless we in Congress do something.
  In the next decade, America is expected to face a shortage of more 
than 120,000 doctors. By 2025, we may face a deficit of nearly a half a 
million nurses. And that is on top of our current shortage of about 
100,000 dentists that we need now and hundreds of thousands of mental 
healthcare professionals.
  This is a ticking timebomb for every community in America, especially 
rural communities and communities of color that already have less 
access to affordable care.
  So here in Congress, we need to prevent these shortages from becoming 
a crisis. Earlier this month, Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, and I 
joined in introducing the Restoring America's Health Care Workforce and 
Readiness Act. It is a bipartisan measure to address the healthcare 
work shortage in America. Over the next 3 years, our bill would provide 
hundreds of millions of dollars to the National Health Service Corps 
Scholarship and Loan Repayment Program, more than doubling the current 
funding level.

[[Page S1064]]

  This program is vital to pay for the education and training and 
recruitment of the next generation of doctors, nurses, dentists, and 
behavioral health specialists.
  Why is this program, in particular, so important? Let me tell you, 
one of the biggest drivers of the American healthcare shortage is the 
cost of medical education. Doctors graduating from medical school with 
$200,000 or $300,000 in student loan debt or more can hardly consider 
taking posts in rural and underserved areas. They have got to pay off 
those loans. So because of those debts, they may not be able to do what 
they want to do--give care and professional treatment to some of the 
most needy people in America. We take our best and brightest, we 
educate them so well, but we heap debt on them unimaginable that makes 
a real difference in their career choices.
  So with the National Health Service Corps and Nurse Corps, aspiring 
health professionals have another option. If they will serve in areas 
of need, we will forgive student loans--in fact, in some cases, 
providing scholarships for those who are in medical training.
  The National Health Service Corps was created 50 years ago. More 
recently, we have seen the difference it can make. In the American 
Rescue Plan that Congress passed in 2021, I included a one-time, $1 
billion funding increase for scholarships and loan repayments for the 
National Health Service Corps. It was the largest single-year 
appropriation for our healthcare force in history. At this very moment, 
that funding is supporting thousands--thousands--of doctors, nurses, 
dentists, and other professionals across America. Today, 21 million 
Americans receive healthcare from the National Health Service Corps 
personnel.
  I recently received a letter from one of those who provide that kind 
of healthcare. Her name is Shannon. She is a licensed clinical social 
worker in Illinois. She is a first-generation college student from a 
working-class family. She tells me her life-long dream was to have a 
professional career in social work, but her ambitions were limited 
because of the cost of graduate school. She just couldn't imagine 
taking on that debt.
  Then, in July of 2022, she found a path forward. She was accepted 
into the program I described. In Shannon's words, ``being accepted into 
this program has changed my life. . . . [It] has given me a chance at 
financial freedom . . . [and] professionally, this program allowed me 
to grow into my career.
  Today, Shannon is working as a behavioral healthcare provider in 
Carbondale, IL, in wonderful Jackson County.
  In Shannon's words, this role allows her to ``come into contact . . . 
with those in rural southern Illinois who are in great need of 
behavioral health services, such as counseling.''
  It is hard to imagine a better investment in America's future than 
programs like the National Health Service Corps and Nurse Corps. In 
Shannon's case, this program enabled her to pursue her life-long 
passion. The community is winning. Shannon is winning. It is a win-win 
situation.
  We need to make more stories like Shannon's possible, and we have a 
chance to do it with the bipartisan bill that Senator Rubio and I have.
  If you go home to your State as a U.S. Senator, and you visit and ask 
local healthcare providers, they are going to tell you the same thing 
from one corner of America to the other corner: We are in desperate 
need of medical professionals to care for people who are underserved 
now.
  What are we going to do about it? What is the Senate going to do 
about it? What will our generation do about it? Can we put together the 
resources now to meet these shortages and needs in the healthcare 
workforce? That is the challenge that we face.
  The National Health Service Corps is up for reauthorization this 
fall. I will be working with the HELP chair, Bernie Sanders, and 
Ranking Member Bill Cassidy to pass our legislation.


                               SIREN Act

  Mr. President, there is one last point I would like to make. It was 
several years ago that I was visited by a couple of emergency medical 
service personnel from Illinois, Mark and Mavis Kennedy. They are EMTs 
in Nauvoo, IL, a storied and historic town on the western part of 
downstate Illinois. They told us about trying to provide ambulance and 
emergency health services in a rural county, in this case Hancock 
County, where Nauvoo is located.
  They talked about the expense of upgrading the equipment in their 
ambulances so that they can make sure that the person that they were 
trying to help gets all the necessary medical care on their way to the 
hospital. They dreamed up an idea. I want to credit the Kennedys of 
Nauvoo, as well as Andrew Jackson, the fire chief in Magnolia, and many 
others who said: Why don't we have a grant program specifically for our 
equipment in these ambulances and for the training of emergency medical 
personnel?
  At the time, we were debating the farm bill. I think it was about 4 
or 5 years ago. I went to the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, 
Senator Pat Roberts of rural Kansas, and said to him: Pat, I think we 
have got an idea here that is going to help communities not only in our 
States but across the Nation. He generously agreed to serve as my 
cosponsor on a bill that we called SIREN Act.
  The SIREN Act said to these ambulance services and emergency medical 
responders: You can apply for assistance and help to the Federal 
Government, and we will try to help you buy the new equipment you need 
to make sure that your ambulance is right where it needs to be.
  You have to understand, if you don't live in a rural area, that some 
of these ambulance services are really the difference between life and 
death. They are the first responders. In fact, they are the only 
responders. They come to scenes across smalltown America and provide 
the kind of medical services to keep people alive for those precious 
minutes on their way to a hospital. So the idea of giving them the best 
and most modern equipment makes all the difference in the world.
  Well, thanks to Senator Roberts, who has since retired from the State 
of Kansas, we included the SIREN Act in the farm bill several years 
ago.
  I have talked to Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, who is now the 
chairman of the Agriculture Committee, and told her that I hope we can 
reauthorize this program in the next farm bill. She supports it. I am 
going to talk to the Republicans on the committee as well. I hope that 
we can do that.
  What we have done has been able to make grants available: First, $5 
million in fiscal year 2020, $10\1/2\ million in 2023, and we hope to 
go higher in the years to come.
  Does it make any difference?
  Just a few minutes ago, Mark and Mavis Kennedy of Nauvoo, IL, were in 
my office. They were in uniform, and they are very proud of the work 
that they do in Hancock County. Because of the assistance that we 
provided to them on one of their applications, they have been able to 
extend their emergency medical services to virtually all the towns in 
Hancock County. What it means for their ambulance service is, instead 
of 140 calls a year, they are now receiving 361--virtually a call every 
single day for services--and they have the equipment and the personnel 
well trained by the same SIREN Act to respond and save lives as they 
are transporting people who live in that county to nearby hospitals.
  If it is someone you love in your family who is in desperate medical 
need, if it is your child or your grandchild or your parents, and you 
have that one phone call to make, you want that ambulance there as 
quickly as possible and the people on board as well trained as 
possible. The SIREN Act does that.
  It is small by Federal standards. I hope it will increase in the 
years ahead. But it just proves that, when people are willing to 
sacrifice and volunteer to help in local communities and we stand by 
them and give them a helping hand, it is the difference between life 
and death.
  I hope all of my colleagues will join us in this effort to 
reauthorize the SIREN Act as part of our commitment to increase 
healthcare personnel and their qualifications across the United States.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican whip.


                          Senate Institutions

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, in January of this year, a former 
Democratic

[[Page S1065]]

Senator penned an op-ed urging Democrats to do away with the Senate 
tradition of blue slips. This was followed within weeks by an editorial 
from the New York Times and an op-ed in the Washington Post making 
similar arguments.
  While the Democratic chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee has 
indicated his desire to maintain the blue slip process, talk of 
abandoning blue slips remains concerning, especially given Democrats' 
attempt last year to do away with the legislative filibuster, a 
mainstay of Senate procedure and a guarantor of minority party 
representation.
  Blue slips--so-called because they are literally blue slips of paper 
requesting perspective on judicial nominees from their home State 
Senators--are a longtime Senate tradition. They serve the important 
function of ensuring that Senators are consulted about judicial 
appointments from their State, and that is particularly relevant when 
it comes to nominees to serve as Federal district court judges.
  The Founders set up the Senate in such a way as to provide a voice 
for States in the national legislature, and Senators continue to 
provide a voice for a whole State in a way that a Representative in the 
House of Representatives does not simply because he or she only 
represents a single district.
  State representation is of particular relevance when it comes to the 
most numerous type of judicial nominee, and that is Federal district 
court judges. Unlike circuit court judges or Supreme Court Justices, 
Federal district court judges are responsible for a limited physical 
jurisdiction that is entirely contained within a single State, and they 
are regularly required to interpret State law as well as Federal law. 
Now, given that fact, Senators, as the representatives of their States, 
should have a particular say in who will receive a lifetime appointment 
to interpret their State's laws.
  The Constitution gives the President the power to appoint judges by 
and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the blue slip 
process in the Senate encourages Presidents to seek that advice--not to 
just send a nominee over to the Senate for consideration and vote but 
to actually discuss a nominee with the relevant home State Senators 
before sending that name over.
  Blue slips also serve as a check on more extreme or problematic 
nominees, first, by encouraging the President not to nominate 
excessively controversial candidates, and second, by providing a way 
for home State Senators to block a nomination for their State if the 
President does nominate someone problematic.
  Senators of both parties regularly return blue slips for judicial 
nominees; in other words, they sign off on the nomination of judicial 
nominees who would not be their first choice but whom they recognize as 
suitable to sit on the bench. When the nominee in question has problems 
beyond just not being a home State Senator's preference, blue slips 
have provided a way for Senators of both parties to stop the 
nomination.
  In the pieces that have come out in support of abolishing the blue 
slip process, I have noticed two strands of thought in particular: one, 
that things have gotten so partisan that we should just do away with 
things that are meant to foster bipartisanship, and two, that doing 
away with blue slips is worth it for the political goal to be achieved, 
and that is getting more Democratic judicial nominees confirmed.
  When it comes to the first, the idea that things have gotten so 
partisan that we should just give up and embrace it, I would say that I 
think the last solution--the last solution--to increased partisanship 
is to abolish measures that promote collaboration and comity.
  Now, we have seen a lot of virulent partisanship around here lately, 
but the truth is that bipartisanship still exists even though it may 
not always receive the same kind of sensational coverage that major 
disputes between the parties receive. And anything that promotes 
bipartisanship, that encourages Members of both parties to work 
together, to listen to each other's concerns, and to compromise when 
possible, is a good thing.
  But while I may not agree that the solution to increased partisanship 
is to just give in to it, I am really troubled by the second idea put 
forward by those who want to abolish blue slips: that it is worth 
abandoning a significant Senate tradition--a tradition that promotes 
compromise, checks unfettered majority power, and serves as a critical 
check on the President--for the sake of temporary political gain.
  This, of course, is hardly the first time we have seen this attitude 
during the Biden administration. We have also seen it displayed with 
Democrats' attempt to abolish the legislative filibuster, the Senate 
rule that today almost unquestionably does more than anything else to 
preserve the Founders' vision of the Senate as a place of stability and 
deliberation and a check on the power of faction.

  I will be frank. The legislative filibuster can be frustrating in the 
extreme. When Republicans were in control of the Senate, we took 
multiple votes on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, a 
piece of legislation that would enshrine what should be the most 
commonsense thing imaginable, and that is that a living, breathing 
child born after a botched abortion should be granted protection. The 
Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act would have passed without 
the legislative filibuster.
  So there is no question that the filibuster can stop good legislation 
from getting passed just as a blue slip could prevent a good judge from 
being confirmed, but that is not a reason to do away with either of 
these Senate procedures, and above all, it is not a reason to do away 
with the legislative filibuster.
  Yeah, the filibuster can be frustrating, and it can certainly be used 
to stop good bills, like the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection 
Act, but it is a powerful protection against bad legislation. Without 
the legislative filibuster, there is very little, if anything, to 
prevent terrible legislation from getting passed by an extremely narrow 
or even merely technical Senate majority.
  The legislative filibuster offers a host of other benefits. It 
encourages compromise, it discourages extremism, and it provides a 
voice for Americans represented by whatever party is in the minority, 
who also deserve representation. The Founders knew that tyranny didn't 
just come in the form of individual despots and dictators. They knew 
that majorities could be tyrants as well and trample on the rights of 
Americans in the minority, and the legislative filibuster helps guard 
against that.
  So I believe very firmly in the Senate rules and traditions that 
preserve the Founders' vision of the Senate as a place of consensus and 
deliberation and that help prevent tyrannical majorities from trampling 
on rights and representation for members of the minority.
  While the legislative filibuster or the blue slip process may prevent 
a good piece of legislation from getting passed or a good nominee from 
getting confirmed, the alternative--the alternative--which is a system 
without meaningful representation for the minority party and the 
Americans it represents, without a meaningful check on extreme nominees 
or legislation that threatens our constitutional rights is, in fact, 
much, much worse.
  So before Democrats think about abolishing key Senate protections 
against extremism or the tyranny of the majority, I hope they will 
consider what things might look like when they are once again in the 
minority and they want to stop a nominee or piece of legislation that 
they view as dangerous or extreme, and I hope they will decide in favor 
of checks and balances in Senate institutions.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. TESTER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S1066]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________