Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2012

Mr. President, I am waiting now for them to bring up a bill I have filed today and will have a number to go with it which I will announce in a moment.

First of all, let me say that the talk of the whole country right now is on the sequestration problems we are having. I would only observe that I don't know why it is so difficult for people to understand, but President Obama has written four budgets and these budgets have come before us, and if we add up all of the deficits in the four budgets, it comes to $5.3 trillion worth of deficits. I suggest that is more deficit than all Presidents in the history of this country for the past 200-plus years.

So, people say, how did we get into this mess? Because when we have those kinds of deficits over a period of time, we wonder where it is coming from. Let me tell my colleagues where it didn't come from, where it wasn't spent, and that is military.

I went over the first budget President Obama had. I went over to Afghanistan so I could make sure I could get the attention of the American people and let them know how this disarming of America by President Obama is going. Of course, if one of my colleagues was part of that first budget, they would know that it cut out our only fifth- generation fighter, the F-22; our lift capacity, the C-17; the future combat system; the ground based interceptor in Poland. That was just the first budget. Then it has gotten worse since that time. Since there isn't time to go over that detail year by year, I can only say that the President has already cut in his budget over the next decade $487 billion, roughly $500 billion, $\1/2\ trillion--from defense spending over the next 10 years.

I would suggest to my colleagues that the American people--this is something that is very frustrating, because they assume that when we send our kids into battle, they have the best of equipment, and this just flat isn't true. The British have an AS90, a Howitzer that is better than ours. The Russians have the 2S19 that is better than ours. Even South Africa has a system that is a better nonline-of-sight cannon than we have in our arsenal. The Chinese have a J-10 that is better than ours. In fact, they are now cranking them out to where they rival our F-15s, F-16s, and F/A18s.

So the point I am making here is there has been no emphasis. If we go out and borrow and increase the deficit by $5.3 trillion as this President is doing, one would think we would be in a position to have a lot more robust military, but the military has been consistently cut over that period of time.

In the event the Obama sequestration as it is designed right now goes through, that will be another $\1/2\ trillion that will come out of the military. Even the President's own Secretary of Defense, Secretary Panetta, has said if these cuts take place--talking about the Obama sequestration cuts--in addition to what he has already cut, it would be ``devastating to the military.'' That means we would have the smallest ground fleet since the 1940s, we would have the smallest fleet of ships since 1915, and the smallest tactical fighter capability or force in the history of the Air Force.

So if we want the United States to continue providing the type of global leadership our people have come to expect and meet the expectations of the American people--when we talk to the American people, they are shocked when they find out other countries have things that are better than we have.

If we want to beat this, then we are going to have to do something about, No. 1, what is happening to the military; and No. 2, the sequestration.

I have it all in one bill. In a minute we will get a number for that bill. Anyway, it is called the Sequestration Prevention Act of 2012. It replaces the sequestration cuts with some smart reforms, and I am going to go over those in a minute to show my colleagues what they are. It replaces the $1.2 trillion and then has a lot of money left over.

Let me just kind of go over what this bill would do. People keep saying: We cannot do anything about it. We cannot do anything about the sequestration, the cuts.

We had this great committee that was supposed to be out there finding $1.2 trillion over a 10-year period and yet we have a President who was able to give us deficits of five times that much over just a 4-year period.

What it does, first of all, to come up with this $1.2 trillion, plus rebuilding the military--we want to rebuild the military, in my estimation, up to 4 percent of GDP. For the last 100 years, prior to 1990--for 100 years--the average defense spending constituted 5.7 percent of GDP. That was the average, in times of war and in times of peace. Now it is all the way down, after his sequestration, to below 3 percent; in other words, about half of that.

What I wish to do with additional funds that come from this bill I am introducing today is put that back into the military and bring us up to 4 percent of GDP--still considerably less than where we have been over the last 100 years.

The first thing it does is completely repeal ObamaCare and adopts Paul Ryan's approach to block granting the Medicaid Program so States have complete control over the dollars they use to reach their low- income populations with health care assistance. Together, these two changes will reduce spending by $1.1 trillion over 10 years.

Secondly, it returns nondefense discretionary spending to the 2006 levels. When this President came in, the amount of the nondefense discretionary spending surged. This would have a savings over that period of time of $952 billion.

The third thing it does is it block grants the Food Stamp Program and converts it into a discretionary program so States have complete control over the design of their nutrition assistance programs to best meet the needs of their low-income populations. This provision reverses the massive expansion we have seen of the Food Stamp Program under the Obama administration, which has literally doubled in size, up to 100 percent, since he took office.

On President Obama's inauguration day, just under 32 million people were on food stamps. Today, it is more than 46 million people, and they receive these benefits. It is going to have to stop. It will continue to go up if we do not do something about it. This provision saves $285 billion.

By the way, I think it is important to know, when we look at the farm program, the farm program is a welfare program because they increase all these provisions and call it part of the farm bill. But that is a different subject, and I will talk about it later, not today but later.

The fourth thing the legislation does is it reduces the Federal workforce by 10 percent through attrition. Nobody out there is going to be fired. There are not going to be any cuts. In fact, it would continue to have some modest increases in payment for those who are there. Through attrition, the savings would be about $144 billion over 10 years.

The fifth thing the bill does is it repeals the authority of the Federal Government to spend taxpayer dollars on climate change or global warming. This is kind of interesting because very few people know that--even though they remember that every time there has been a bill on cap and trade, there is a cost to the American people of somewhere between $300 billion and $400 billion a year, and people's heads start spinning when we talk about these large amounts. Sometimes in my State of Oklahoma, what I have done is take the total number of families who file Federal tax returns and then I apply this to it. This would be about $3,000 per family in my State of Oklahoma. Yet even the Director of the EPA admits that if we did this, it would not reduce CO2 emissions worldwide. That is the Director of the EPA, Lisa Jackson, and that is on the record. I appreciate her honesty in that respect.

If we do this right now--what people do not know is this President has spent $68.4 billion since he has been President on all this global warming stuff. That is without authority because we have clearly defeated all those bills. What he has done through regulations is what he could not do through legislation. But nobody knows about it, until now. Now they know about it.

Anyway, if we stop doing that over the next 10 years, that will save an additional $83 billion.

Finally, the legislation includes comprehensive medical malpractice and

tort reform. That is the same thing that was passed by the House of Representatives and that would save $74 billion over 10 years.

All told, all the savings generated would be $2.6 trillion--not $1.2 trillion--$2.6 trillion over 10 years. So do not let anyone tell you, we cannot get there from here. Clearly, we can get there from here.

We use the remaining amount to beef up the military to get back to our 4-percent level. I believe if we were to talk to the average American, they would say: Yes, let's go ahead and do this. Why aren't we doing it now?

Let me mention one other thing before I conclude; that is, we have something called the WARN Act. What that does is require the employers--who know because of sequestration there are going to be layoffs--to give pink slips at least 60 days prior to the time that will happen. Under sequestration, if they do not adopt my act, if they do that, then those pink slips would have to be out there by the 2nd of November.

The President does not want that to happen. He does not want the Obama sequestration to be pointed out and identified as to what is causing them to lose their jobs, so he is trying to get companies not to comply with the WARN Act.

Clearly, the WARN Act says ``an employer shall not order a plant closing or mass layoff until the end of a 60-day period after the employer serves written notice of such an order.''

The WARN Act states--this is very significant because if there are companies out there that are listening to the President when he is asking them not to issue the pink slips, this is what would happen to them--it states that ``any employer who orders a plant closing or mass layoff in violation of Section 3 . . . shall be liable to each aggrieved employee who suffers an employment loss as a result of such closing or layoff.''

In other words, if they do not do it, then that opens the doors for all the trial lawyers to come in. Just imagine the cases. At Lockheed Martin, they say they are going to have to let go of some 120,000 people. If they had a class action suit, each one who was let go would receive something like $1,000. That would be $120 million that company would have to pay. I cannot imagine the board of directors of any company anywhere in America not complying with this legal act called the WARN Act.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about a bill that I have the pleasure of helping to lead with several of my colleagues, particularly Senator Grassley, who has been my long- standing partner and a wonderful cochair of the foster care caucus. There are any number of us, Republicans and Democrats, who have our eyes on and our hearts connected to the 500,000 children who are technically being raised by the government.

The government does many things well, but raising children isn't one of them. So it is our responsibility, when we enter into or respond to a case of abuse, gross abuse, neglect, or gross neglect, that we respond appropriately by removing children from homes who have, unfortunately, been tortured at times by their own parents. That, of course, is inconceivable to me and to many, but, unfortunately, it happens.

So we remove children--hopefully temporarily--until the situation at home can be addressed with community services, faith-based services and support, where the children can be reunited with parents who have been healed, possibly, of their situation. That is not always the case, and we work as quickly as we can to find responsible and able relatives to take in the child--willing and able relatives, the law says, to take in the child with sibling groups intact. If that is not possible, then we seek to find a family in the community that will adopt these children.

The thing I want to say about these wonderful children is that while their families may be broken--families may disintegrate for all sorts of reasons, including mental health, drug abuse, uncontrollable violence, criminal activity that disintegrates the family, and children are most certainly affected--these children, in many instances, aren't broken. Their families are broken. The possibility of these children, from the ages of zero to 1 or 2 or 3 or 9 or 12 or 15, being given an opportunity to be adopted into the loving arms of a stable family who will raise that child or children as their own or to be reunified with loving family members is ideal.

As I said, governments do many things well, but raising children isn't one of them. Human beings raise other human beings, and we need to do a better job of placing our children in quality, temporary foster homes, and then finding permanent, loving homes.

We have this crazy notion in America and around the world that children are grown when they are 18, so we put all of their belongings in a plastic bag and we say goodbye to them, and we tell them: Please forget my cell phone number because you have aged out of the system.

Several of us have been working for years, including former Senator Chafee, for one, to create more permanent opportunities for extended, independent living. While I support that--it is much better than putting their things in a bag, their few little items after 18 years, and sending them on their way--we now can extend that help until they are 21. However, what we really need to be doing is finding families for these children.

I am 57 and I still need my family. I still talk to my mother and father almost every day. I was with my family this weekend. They will be with me and have been with me for every important moment of my life. When did somebody get a notion that children don't need a family after they are 18? It is a silly notion, and it is not even true. We would not send our own children into the world alone by themselves. So our whole foster system needs great reform, and we are working on that.

But one piece of this system that needs reform is what we are trying to address today by introducing the Uninterrupted Scholars Act, which is a bill that Senator Grassley and many others, including Senator Begich, Senator Blunt, Senator Boxer, Senator Franken, and Senator Klobuchar have graciously agreed to cosponsor and provide their leadership. Congresswoman Bass is a U.S. Representative from California's 33rd District. She, along with Congresswoman Bachmann from Minnesota, Congressman Marino from Pennsylvania, and Congressman McDermott from Washington State, has introduced the same bipartisan bill in the House. So we are very excited about the strong bipartisan support for this bill.

All this bill says--and it makes such sense I can't believe it is not in the law already--is that when a child comes into the care of the government, the government agency responsible for the care of this child--now it is not parents any longer because the parents' rights either have been terminated or are in the process of being terminated-- the government will have the right, or the agencies representing the government, to their academic records.

What is happening now is foster children are getting lost not only in the system but lost in their schools because of the difficulty in getting access to education records under the guise that these records should be private, et cetera.

What is happening is some of these privacy rules are not protecting the children, they are protecting the system that is broken, and that is the problem. We are doing everything we can to protect the privacy of the child, but what is happening is some of these privacy rules are putting up a screen so that we can't find out that the school is not doing its job on behalf of the child, or the social workers are not doing their job on behalf of the child.

So this simply streamlines the process of making sure academic records can be accessed by foster families--either adoptive families or guardians--without having to go through the courts for a long, extended timeframe.

I think this is an important change. It is one of probably 100 changes to this system that need to be made. Of course, we can make these new laws in Washington. A lot of this has to be carried out with heart and compassion and common sense, which, unfortunately, we cannot legislate from Washington. But what we can do is try, when we see a problem--this problem was identified not by me or by my staff. It was actually identified by foster youth who came up here this summer to intern and brought to our attention the issue that some of their records are not accessible to their foster families who are trying their best to raise them and to help them, et cetera. So the young people themselves have asked for this change. We are happy to accommodate that request.

Let me end by saying again, there are over 480,000--about 400,000 to 500,000--children who are in our foster care system representing less than one-half of 1 percent of all the children in America, which is about 100 million. But it is an important one-half of 1 percent because these are children whose families have failed them terribly. These are children who are vulnerable and need us to love them extra specially, to help them extra specially. That is what some of us spend a good bit of our time trying to do because they are willing and able to become great citizens of our Nation but need that extra special help.

So this Uninterrupted Scholars Act will give access, appropriately with protections, to their academic records. Senator Franken has a bill to give them choice in public schools to help give them stability in their public schools, so they can stay with their friends, their teachers, as they, unfortunately, have to move around in the system.

Many people will benefit--most importantly, the youth involved.

Mr. President, I am today introducing a bill to implement the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future.

The Blue Ribbon Commission was appointed by Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, at the request of President Obama, in March 2010. The purpose of the Commission was to examine the nation's nuclear waste management policy, consider alternatives, and recommend a new approach. The Commission was made up of 15 distinguished members, and co-chaired by Representative Lee Hamilton and General Brent Scowcroft. Two of our former colleagues, Senator Domenici and Senator Hagel, were also members.

The Commission did an outstanding job. It met more than two dozen times over two years, conducted five public hearings across the country, heard testimony from countless experts and stakeholders, visited nuclear waste management facilities both here and abroad, and assembled a very thorough, thoughtful, and authoritative report.

The Commission made eight clear, concise, and eminently sensible recommendations. Principally, it recommended that we adopt a new, consent-based approach to siting nuclear waste management facilities, and that we establish a new organization to manage the nuclear waste management program. It affirmed the need to build one or more geologic repositories in which nuclear waste can be permanently buried, and it endorsed the need to build one or more temporary storage facilities in which nuclear waste can be stored until it can be permanently disposed of in a repository. It emphasized the importance of giving the new organization access to the funds needed to implement the program. It also made useful recommendations on transportation, and on the importance of continued support for nuclear research and development and international nuclear non-proliferation programs.

The Commission published its report at the end of January, and the two co-chairs, Representative Hamilton and General Scowcroft, testified to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on it in early February.

Since then, I have been working with the Ranking Republican on the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Senator Murkowski, and the Chairman and Ranking Republican on the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Feinstein and Senator Alexander, to try to put the commission's recommendations into legislative language.

Much of our time and effort centered on the Commission's recommendation for ``a new organization dedicated solely to implementing the waste management program.'' The Commission recommended that Congress establish a new ``single purpose organization,'' outside of the Department of Energy, but still within the Federal Government to manage the nation's nuclear wastes in place of the Department of Energy. More specifically, it proposed formation of a government corporation, and suggested that the Tennessee Valley Authority might provide a useful model.

Our initial efforts focused on the government corporation approach, but we ultimately agreed to set that model aside in favor of a structure that we believe may be both more effective and more accountable. We chose to focus full responsibility and authority for the program in a single administrator, and to establish a separate board made up of senior Federal officials to oversee the administrator.

Most of the rest of our discussions focused on the siting process for temporary storage facilities and permanent geologic repositories. We agreed with the commission's recommendation that the new organization employ a consent-based approach to siting nuclear waste facilities and with the need for to establish interim storage facilities pending completion of a repository. But we were unable to agree on the ``linkage'' between storage facilities and the repository.

Under current law, the Department of Energy cannot begin constructing a storage facility until the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issues a license to construct the repository. The Commission found that this tight linkage has prevented a storage facility from being built and recommended that it be eliminated. But the commission also recognized the need for what it called ``positive linkages'' between storage and disposal to ensure that progress continues on both fronts and interim storage does not end up become permanent.

Meanwhile, while our discussions were underway, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee reported legislation that authorizes the Secretary of Energy to begin storing nuclear waste at interim storage sites. My proposal for ``positive linkages'' was to allow the new agency to store up to 10,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel at a storage facility built under the authority in the appropriations bill, even if no agreement has

been reached on a repository, but to require there to be an agreement for a repository before allowing the new agency to store nuclear waste at other storage facilities.

Regrettably, we were not able to reach an agreement on this issue or on whether the siting process for storage facilities should be identical to the siting process for repositories wherever possible.

Nonetheless, we agreed that I should introduce the bill with the linkages that I have proposed and that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources should hold a hearing on it in September. I recognize, of course, that the bill will not become law this year. But my hope is to obtain testimony on it and to build a legislative record that might serve as the foundation for further consideration and ultimate enactment in the next Congress.

The Blue Ribbon Commission found that ``it is long past time for the government to make good on its commitments to the American people to provide for the safe disposal of nuclear waste.''

``Put simply,'' the Commission said, ``this nation's failure to come to grips with the nuclear waste issue has already proved damaging and costly. It will be even more damaging and more costly the longer it continues. . . . ''

The commission has performed a very valuable service to the nation in showing us a way forward. Its recommendations merit our careful consideration and deserve our approval. I have attempted to put them into legislative form so that they can be enacted and implemented.

I recognize that will not happen this year. It will take a great deal more time and work. But it must begin and I hope it will continue in the next Congress.

Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am today introducing a bill to implement the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future.

The Blue Ribbon Commission was appointed by Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, at the request of President Obama, in March 2010. The purpose of the Commission was to examine the nation's nuclear waste management policy, consider alternatives, and recommend a new approach. The Commission was made up of 15 distinguished members, and co-chaired by Representative Lee Hamilton and General Brent Scowcroft. Two of our former colleagues, Senator Domenici and Senator Hagel, were also members.

The Commission did an outstanding job. It met more than two dozen times over two years, conducted five public hearings across the country, heard testimony from countless experts and stakeholders, visited nuclear waste management facilities both here and abroad, and assembled a very thorough, thoughtful, and authoritative report.

The Commission made eight clear, concise, and eminently sensible recommendations. Principally, it recommended that we adopt a new, consent-based approach to siting nuclear waste management facilities, and that we establish a new organization to manage the nuclear waste management program. It affirmed the need to build one or more geologic repositories in which nuclear waste can be permanently buried, and it endorsed the need to build one or more temporary storage facilities in which nuclear waste can be stored until it can be permanently disposed of in a repository. It emphasized the importance of giving the new organization access to the funds needed to implement the program. It also made useful recommendations on transportation, and on the importance of continued support for nuclear research and development and international nuclear non-proliferation programs.

The Commission published its report at the end of January, and the two co-chairs, Representative Hamilton and General Scowcroft, testified to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on it in early February.

Since then, I have been working with the Ranking Republican on the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Senator Murkowski, and the Chairman and Ranking Republican on the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Feinstein and Senator Alexander, to try to put the commission's recommendations into legislative language.

Much of our time and effort centered on the Commission's recommendation for ``a new organization dedicated solely to implementing the waste management program.'' The Commission recommended that Congress establish a new ``single purpose organization,'' outside of the Department of Energy, but still within the Federal Government to manage the nation's nuclear wastes in place of the Department of Energy. More specifically, it proposed formation of a government corporation, and suggested that the Tennessee Valley Authority might provide a useful model.

Our initial efforts focused on the government corporation approach, but we ultimately agreed to set that model aside in favor of a structure that we believe may be both more effective and more accountable. We chose to focus full responsibility and authority for the program in a single administrator, and to establish a separate board made up of senior Federal officials to oversee the administrator.

Most of the rest of our discussions focused on the siting process for temporary storage facilities and permanent geologic repositories. We agreed with the commission's recommendation that the new organization employ a consent-based approach to siting nuclear waste facilities and with the need for to establish interim storage facilities pending completion of a repository. But we were unable to agree on the ``linkage'' between storage facilities and the repository.

Under current law, the Department of Energy cannot begin constructing a storage facility until the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issues a license to construct the repository. The Commission found that this tight linkage has prevented a storage facility from being built and recommended that it be eliminated. But the commission also recognized the need for what it called ``positive linkages'' between storage and disposal to ensure that progress continues on both fronts and interim storage does not end up become permanent.

Meanwhile, while our discussions were underway, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee reported legislation that authorizes the Secretary of Energy to begin storing nuclear waste at interim storage sites. My proposal for ``positive linkages'' was to allow the new agency to store up to 10,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel at a storage facility built under the authority in the appropriations bill, even if no agreement has

been reached on a repository, but to require there to be an agreement for a repository before allowing the new agency to store nuclear waste at other storage facilities.

Regrettably, we were not able to reach an agreement on this issue or on whether the siting process for storage facilities should be identical to the siting process for repositories wherever possible.

Nonetheless, we agreed that I should introduce the bill with the linkages that I have proposed and that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources should hold a hearing on it in September. I recognize, of course, that the bill will not become law this year. But my hope is to obtain testimony on it and to build a legislative record that might serve as the foundation for further consideration and ultimate enactment in the next Congress.

The Blue Ribbon Commission found that ``it is long past time for the government to make good on its commitments to the American people to provide for the safe disposal of nuclear waste.''

``Put simply,'' the Commission said, ``this nation's failure to come to grips with the nuclear waste issue has already proved damaging and costly. It will be even more damaging and more costly the longer it continues. . . . ''

The commission has performed a very valuable service to the nation in showing us a way forward. Its recommendations merit our careful consideration and deserve our approval. I have attempted to put them into legislative form so that they can be enacted and implemented.

I recognize that will not happen this year. It will take a great deal more time and work. But it must begin and I hope it will continue in the next Congress.

Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, for the past 47 years, the Older Americans Act, OAA, has provided a wide array of services to improve the lives of older Americans, family caregivers, and persons with disabilities. Through the Act, millions of Americans receive critical home and community-based services including, home-delivered meal programs, transportation, adult day care, legal assistance and health promotion programs. The National Aging Network delivers these vital services to local communities through the Administration on Aging, State Units on Aging, SUAs, and over 600 Area Agencies on Aging, AAAs.

The aging network supports a number of health, prevention and wellness programs for older adults, such as, chronic disease self- management programs, alcohol and substance abuse reduction, smoking cessation, weight loss and control, and health screenings. Despite this focus on health promotion, currently, there is no definition of care coordination included in the Older Americans Act. In fact, the unique coordination needed for an older adult with multiple chronic conditions is absent from the definition of the OAA case manager role.

The inclusion of care coordination in the OAA is necessary to prepare the aging network for their role in linking medical care to community long-term services and supports. The Affordable Care Act is transforming the health care delivery system through medical home demonstration, Accountable Care Organizations, and the Partnership for Patient-Care Transitions. But to be truly successful, these reforms will require the coordination of care between state and federal health care programs and the aging network.

Today, I am introducing the Care Coordination for Older Americans Act, a bill that would integrate care coordination in the long-term services and supports system. My legislation would include a definition of care coordination in the declaration of objectives of the Older Americans Act and would require the aging network to develop and implement a care coordination plan to address the needs of older individuals with multiple chronic illnesses.

I would like to thank a number of aging organizations who have been integral to the development of this legislation and who have endorsed it today, including: Aging Services of California, the American Geriatrics Society, the American Society on Aging, the Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging, the Center for Medicare Advocacy, the Consumer Coalition for Quality Health Care, the Easter Seals, The Gerontological Society of America, LeadingAge, the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, n4a, the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, the National Association of Nutrition and Aging Services Programs, the National Association of the Professional Geriatric Care Managers, the National Center on Caregiving, the Family Caregiver Alliance, PHI Quality Care through Quality Jobs, the Social Work Leadership Institute / New York Academy of Medicine, and the University of Illinois College of Nursing Institute for Health Care Innovation. In addition, the National Coalition for Care Coordination was pivotal in their assistance developing a definition of care coordination which adequately addresses the needs of the aging network.

Since being enacted in 1965, the OAA has evolved over time to meet the ever-changing needs of our aging population. As we work to reauthorize this successful program that has allowed millions of seniors to remain independent in their homes and communities, we should incorporate new initiatives that reflect the current challenges facing seniors, such as the lack of care coordination between health programs and community long-term services and supports.

For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation and to support its inclusion in the reauthorization of the OAA.