Geriatrics Workforce Improvement Act

Mr. President, the Humanitarian Research Lab at Yale University now estimates that over 35,000 abducted Ukrainian kids are being held by Russia. The few who have been rescued tell horrific stories of Russian indoctrination, illegal militarization, and brutal punishment for refusing to give up their Ukrainian identity.

Here are some stories from kids who were rescued, courtesy of an organization called Bring Kids Back Ukraine:

``The Russians said that my mother did not need me and that I would be given to a foster family in Russia,'' said 12-year-old Olekander from Mariupol.

``I wanted to escape through the backyard but was afraid they might shoot me. So I had to get in a truck with them. It was so scary,'' said 13-year-old Artem from Kharkiv.

Another story is from these six children: Vitaliy, Zhenia, Taya and Dayana and then, of course, two other girls who asked not to be named. They said, in September and October 2022, they came to the occupied Crimean Peninsula for what was called a rehabilitation program. They say they were mocked in the camp, humiliated based on their nationality. The Russians lock children like these folks who expressed pro-Ukrainian positions in a basement or an isolation cell. They forbade children to speak Ukrainian and, instead, forced them to listen to the Russian national anthem, learn Russian patriotic songs, and to do hard work.

For at least 6 months, the Russians lied to children that their parents had allegedly abandoned them and, in general, that Ukraine no longer needed these children.

Now, as the Trump administration moves forward to secure a peace, we must not forget the plight of these children. I appreciated very much First Lady Melania Trump's heartfelt letter urging Putin to release these kids, and I also heard that President Zelenskyy mentioned those letters and the children at a recent White House meeting.

So children should not become bargaining chips in the geopolitical negotiations. Their safe return must be prioritized before any final peace agreement is reached.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, today, I want to address a serious matter of public safety facing our country. Although our government has many responsibilities, the foremost responsibility of any government is the protection and safety of its citizens. By many measures, as elected leaders, we are falling short.

Recent polling indicates that crime in large cities is a major concern of 81 percent of Americans. We can debate crime trends and statistics until we are blue in the face. But at the end of the day, if 81 percent of Americans don't feel safe, we are not doing our job.

For hundreds of years, we have known that swift and certain punishment for criminal acts is a basis of deterrence and order. And in a country such as ours based on the rule of law, this kind of deterrence requires officials to prosecute criminals.

Communities around our country are in desperate need of U.S. attorneys to protect the public and uphold the rule of law. We have 10 highly qualified nominees on the Senate floor right now waiting for confirmation. There is no reason that we shouldn't get them to work for the American people today.

Unfortunately, my Democratic colleagues have engaged in blanket obstruction of all nominees in their misguided attempt to derail the Trump administration. This sweeping obstruction shockingly includes even highly qualified U.S. attorneys that are supported by Democratic Senators.

The actions of Senate Democrats are putting the public in harm's way. There is simply no other way to say it.

On May 22, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee announced a hold on nominations for U.S. attorneys for the Southern District of Florida. Since then, the Senate minority leader and Senate Democrats have expanded the hold to apply to all 93 U.S. attorneys. This blockade of public officials is unprecedented and untenable.

As the ranking member explained just last Congress, obstructing the confirmation of U.S. attorneys is ``dangerous'' and ``undermines public safety across the entire Nation.'' He correctly noted:

You can't prosecute the case if you don't have the U.S.

Attorney there to lead the effort, coordinate the effort with

other branches of government.

I completely agree with these points made by my friend Senator Durbin.

My Democratic colleagues claim that their obstruction is justified because at the end of the Biden administration, a freshman Senator at that time placed a hold on a handful of U.S. attorneys.

Although only five U.S. attorneys were ultimately blocked by that hold, I even opposed the decision by my freshman colleague. That limited hold was wrong then, and this blanket hold is even more wrong at this point. Five U.S. attorneys held by a freshman Senator at the end of an administration is a far cry from the current widespread obstruction. The strategy today is orchestrated by Senate Democrat leadership and is occurring at the beginning of an administration and impacts all 93 U.S. attorneys.

Last Congress, the Democratic whip said that requiring a rollcall vote for all U.S. Senators is ``unsustainable'' because ``without Senate-confirmed leadership of U.S. Attorneys, public safety will suffer across the United States.'' He was entirely correct. Confirming each U.S. attorney by a rollcall would consume more than 230 hours of valuable floor time in the Senate.

So what has changed now? Why are the same Democrats who decried the obstruction--pardon me. So what has changed? Why are the same Democrats who decried the obstruction of U.S. attorneys last year engaging in that very same conduct today? The answer is that they don't like the President of the United States. I understand disagreement with the President. People know that I have had my disagreements with President Trump. I certainly had no shortage of objections also to the conduct of President Biden. But elections have consequences and the President's ability to select these U.S. attorneys is a direct reflection of the electoral mandate of November 2024, a mandate that no Republican

President has had since Reagan had that same mandate in 1984.

For months, I repeatedly tried to engage my Democratic colleagues to end this obstruction. If some kind of equal measure is necessary, I even offered a compromise where we hold five rollcall votes to compensate for the five nominees returned to the President at the end of the Biden administration. To my disappointment, my Democratic colleagues haven't taken me up on that offer; although, I have had some very satisfying discussions with them in the late hours. I hope that we get a relenting of that. And whatever it takes, I am going to participate in that process. I think that I am finding the same sort of participation on the other side.

But in the meantime, I remind my Democratic colleagues of the ranking member's own warning last Congress when he admonished the Senate needs to ``put public safety and the needs of law enforcement ahead of politics.''

Currently, there are 10 U.S. attorney nominees that have been reported favorably out of the committee by a voice vote. These are not controversial nominees. Three of them carry blue slips returned by Democratic Senators. Several of them are in districts where recent tragic crimes have taken place.

Instead of languishing on the Senate floor as pawns of partisan obstruction, these nominees should be in their districts investigating crimes, prosecuting criminals, and keeping the American people safe.

Take the nomination of Daniel Rosen to the District of Minnesota as one example. Mr. Rosen was reported out of committee by voice vote. He has the support of his home State Senators Klobuchar and Smith, both Democrats. He is a qualified nominee.

Just last week in Minnesota, a shooter entered a service at Annunciation Catholic Church, murdering 2 little children and injuring 18 others. This horrific crime shocked our Nation, and the full force of our government should be mobilized in response. But what are Democrats doing instead? They are blocking the confirmation of Mr. Rosen to be the chief Federal law enforcement officer in Minnesota--not because of any objection to his qualifications but as an act of partisanship.

Enough is enough. My priority is the safety of the American people, and that priority should be shared by all Members of this body. I know that even Democrats--I shouldn't say ``even Democrats.'' I know Democrats also want that same public safety. But this business of not having U.S. attorneys is standing in the way.

I will now ask unanimous consent to confirm the 10 U.S. attorneys who have been reported out of committee. I hope that my Democrat colleagues will relent from their partisan obstruction and allow these nominees to get to work. Debate and disagreement about policies are to be expected, but it should never come at the expense of public safety.

So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc: David Waterman of Iowa, No. 176; No. 183, Ron Parsons, South Dakota; No. 257, David Metcalf, Pennsylvania; No. 258, Bart Davis, Idaho; No. 316, Kurt Alme, Montana; No. 317, Nicholas Chase, North Dakota; No. 318, Lesley Murphy, Nebraska; No. 319, Daniel Rosen, Minnesota; No. 320, Erik Siebert, Virginia; and No. 321, Kurt Wall of Louisiana; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate, that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I am sorry for the objection.

I would agree with continuing to work to see if we can find a solution on this. Public safety is such an important issue. U.S. attorneys are central to such public safety, and we should get them approved. I hope we can get something worked out.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, for 9 long months, the Senate Democrats have waged an unprecedented effort to slow down the Senate and to delay the President from getting his team on the field. It has been an unprecedented blockade.

President Trump was elected to get America back on track, and that means getting the team on the job. So what did Chuck Schumer, who just spoke here on the Senate floor, have to say? Well, he put out a press release in August, and he said that ``historically bad nominees''--his words--``deserve a historic level of scrutiny.'' You see, he has treated every nominee from President Trump as controversial, and he has treated every nominee as an existential threat to our Nation.

If Senator Schumer and Senate Democrats have specific concerns with specific nominees, they should come down to the Senate floor and discuss them and share their concerns with the American people. That is not what is happening.

Here are the facts: Senate Republicans have confirmed now 109 sub- Cabinet nominees. Now, that is in addition to the Cabinet that we have confirmed and the judges that we have confirmed. Every single one of those 109 sub-Cabinet nominees has been filibustered by the Democrats. Yet only seven of them received more than 10 minutes of debate on the Senate floor.

Now, you know, Mr. President, when they filibuster, that consumes 2 hours on the Senate floor to debate the nominees. They have chosen to waste the time but not to discuss the credibility of any of these nominees or their qualities for service, what we will get. In fact, of the Democrats who filibustered all 109 sub-Cabinet nominees, the average Democrat debate was 2 minutes. Eighty-seven had zero Democrat debate, and only 7 went on for more than 10 minutes. In other words, Senate Democrats declined to come to the floor to discuss 75 percent of these sub-Cabinet nominees that ultimately were all confirmed by the U.S. Senate. This is in spite of the fact that each one of them required the 2 full hours of debate.

On average--we have done all the math; we watched all the speeches--2 minutes 12 seconds, by the Democrats, were consumed discussing each nominee, on average; 218 hours of debate time spent on the Senate floor, ignored by the Democrats, wasted time. We couldn't do legislation. We couldn't do other things because of this historic obstruction by the Democrats of what the American people voted for.

For all the bluster and all the so-called historic scrutiny, the Democrats and Chuck Schumer, when it came to nominees, have been missing in action. These guys actually spent more time on the Senate floor debating and discussing wasteful Washington spending--such as using taxpayer dollars for electric vehicles in Africa--than they did on all 109 sub-Cabinet nominees combined. The Senate Democrats and Chuck Schumer froze the Senate floor

for 210 hours from doing the important public business as a result of their unprecedented blockade.

It is time for the Senate to return to normalcy, to regular order, and that is because there are still 145 nominees on the Executive Calendar that we have right here on our desk waiting to be confirmed. These are people who have gone through the hearing process, have been voted out of committees, and are stuck here in the Senate limbo of waiting to see what is going to happen with their confirmation. They are waiting to help in the fight to get America back on track and to do the people's business, and the Democrats are obstructing every step along the way.

It seems like the Democrats just want to sabotage our effort to get America back on track. Otherwise, why are they standing in the way of the progress of our Nation? We know these nominees are all qualified-- the 145 I have just referred to--because committees have actually reported them out to the Senate. They have had background checks from the FBI; their ethics reports have all been confirmed; and they have actually been approved by the Senate committees, the committees whose job it is to scrutinize. That is why half of the 145 that we are still waiting to come to the Senate floor, they have earned bipartisan support coming out of committees. They are ready to go, ready to get put to work.

So the minority leader needs to stop pretending that he is leading some kind of grand investigation because he is not. It is time for him to admit that this has nothing to do with the qualifications of the nominees. His objections have everything to do with his obsession with President Trump. That is what we are dealing with here.

Many of these bipartisan nominees have been waiting for months to get put to work. They have been nominated. They have put their lives on hold. They are ready to go. Yet the Democrats, through their sabotaging, have slowed the process to a crawl, and there is absolutely no reason for this.

Look, this latest Schumer shutdown of this confirmation process, it really does leave critical jobs unfilled; it does weaken our economy; it does undermine our international diplomacy; and it jeopardizes our safety.

The Senate, in the past, didn't operate this way, and we need to change things to get America back on track and get the Senate back on track. You know, 98 percent of George W. Bush's--President Bush's-- nominees and Bill Clinton's nominees, they were confirmed by voice vote or unanimous consent. They had gone through the committee process; they were sent to the Senate and then worked through the process pretty quickly.

During President Trump's second term, the number that went by voice vote or unanimous consent--here we are, 9 months in--zero. Absolutely zero. Why? Because of what the Democrats are doing in an unprecedented way. They seem to be obstructing for obstruction's sake.

Today, 45 of the 145 nominees stuck on the calendar are, interestingly, for positions that never before in the history of the Senate have actually had to come up for a rollcall vote. They always went by voice vote or unanimous consent. So I would ask the Senate minority leader, if he were on the floor, to tell me why the Chief Counsel for Advocacy at the Small Business Administration--I mean, that is the position--why that needed to be filibustered. Why did he and the Democrats filibuster the Chief Counsel for Advocacy for the Small Business Administration? What was so critical about that position or so wrong with the nominee that the Democrats would decide it was worthy of spending 2 hours of Senate floor business to filibuster this nominee who got confirmed anyway and in the past has never had a vote on that? It has always gone by unanimous consent or by voice vote. Confirming positions like this used to only take seconds. Now it can take days, and it is because of the obstruction by the Democrats.

The Senate has a role of advice and consent. That is why we have the committee process. That is why we go through it. But what we are dealing with is stalling and delaying. There are still more than 800 positions that still need to come through the Senate. Some have not been named yet; the President has not made nominations because the President has over 1,100 nominations to make to fill out the government and the people that do the job of the people. But without a change to try to get through that next 800, that would take years, over 1,000 hours on the Senate floor. And that is if the Senate did nothing else because every time they filibuster one, those are 2 wasted hours, and they end up spending 2 minutes of debate in total. And 81 percent of them nominated who got approved, the Democrats spent zero time on the floor even talking about.

Look, under this Schumer confirmation shutdown, it is impossible for the U.S. Senate to pass legislation--we can't do it; the floor is iced--legislation such as the National Defense Authorization Act that we are getting to today, we are considering it this week; funding bills that we need to do the appropriations bills that Schumer never even brought to the floor when he was the leader. We want to get those passed, doing the people's business.

The Senate and our Nation cannot continue to be run this way and controlled this way and function this way. If Democrats won't stop abusing the rules of the Senate, Republicans are prepared to change the rules. Later today, Senate Republicans are going to discuss how to update these rules to restore the Senate's longtime practice, a practice of confirming nominees in a reasonable fashion. Now, we are not talking about Cabinet Secretaries or Supreme Court Justices. We are talking about restoring the norms of the Senate for the hundreds of routine, qualified nominees who come through the committee process, go through the scrutiny, and then come to the Senate floor to be put to work.

I would say, enough with the Democrat obstruction, enough with this phony scrutiny, and enough with another Schumer shutdown. The American people elected President Trump and they elected Republicans to get America back on track, and that is what we continue and will continue to do.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, let me begin by reading a few headlines showing what Donald Trump's so-called golden age really looks like. These are headlines from the past few weeks from the Wall Street Journal:

``Factory Activity Shrinks for the Sixth Month''; ``Tariffs

Remain a Key Worry.''

Hello.

Or how about this headline also from the Wall Street Journal:

``Stagnant Job Market Is a Rising Risk for the U.S.

Economy.''

Or how about from Bloomberg:

``Economists See Slow U.S. Growth, Stubborn Inflation Well

Into 2026.''

Finally, from CBS News:

Families are paying more for back-to-school supplies and

waiting longer to finish shopping, data shows.

So I guess this is Donald Trump's idea of a golden age: Parents pay more for school supplies, a job market on the brink, more and more and more inflation that hurts people's pocketbooks every week, factories slowing to crawl month after month. That is certainly not what the American people have signed up for.

This morning, the White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and other senior White House officials will hold ``briefing sessions'' with GOP members about how to rebrand the ``Big Ugly Bill'' in hopes they can make it play better with the American people. They are squirming. They know this bill is unpopular. So now what do they want to do? Change the name. Changing the name isn't going to open rural hospitals that are closing. Changing the name is not going to give healthcare to the millions who will lose it. Changing the name is not going to prevent healthcare premiums from going up and up and up.

Donald Trump says he wants to change the name of this Big Beautiful Bill because, as it turns out, it is terrible. It is a terrible name for the biggest healthcare and nutrition cuts in history.

Americans know damn well that these Medicaid and ACA cuts are not big and beautiful. They are hideous. They are cruel. They are destructive.

The fact that Donald Trump says Medicaid cuts are big and beautiful shows just who he is and just what his values are. The American people are learning who he really is.

The fact that Donald Trump thinks that Medicaid cuts are beautiful reveals to America who he cares about and who he doesn't give a damn about. And the average American he doesn't care a bit about. He cares about giving tax breaks to his billionaires, and he cuts healthcare to do it, and then he calls that beautiful. Well, maybe it is beautiful for a few billionaires. It sure ain't beautiful for tens of millions of Americans who are hurt by it.

Let's be very clear, folks. The Republicans don't have a branding problem; they have a substance problem. What they did is horrible. They can call their bill whatever the hell they want; it is not going to change the fact that millions are going to lose healthcare, tens of millions are going to have their premiums go up, rural hospitals will close, and research funding that saves kids from cancer will be slashed.

When hospitals close, when people get sick and die, they don't give a damn what Donald Trump's bill is called; they want the Republicans to stand up to Trump--Republicans here in the Senate--and reverse these cuts even though just about every one of them voted for them.

If Republicans think that a bunch of branding briefing sessions can change the American people's views of what this bill is all about, they are colossally out of touch.

I spent a month in August traveling from Niagara Falls to Glens Falls. I met with parents. I met with doctors. I met with nurses. I met with hospital

people. I met with Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. People detest this Big Beautiful Bill. It is cruel.

If you don't believe me, look at the data. Republicans, Donald Trump, look at the data. Look at what the American people think of this so- called Big Beautiful Bill. Americans hate the Republican ``Big Ugly Bill.''

Pew Research: 46 percent disapprove, 32 percent approve.

Navigator: 52 percent unfavorable, 33 percent favorable about the ``Big Ugly Bill.''

CNN: 61 percent oppose, 39 percent approve.

These are not just marginal differences. Overwhelmingly, just about every Democrat, two-thirds to three-quarters of Independents, and a large chunk of Republicans hate this bill. That is what the data shows. That is what the data shows.

The Republican problem is not difficult to understand. Why Leader Thune, Speaker Johnson, the White House, and the Republican Senators are squirming and on their back foot is not difficult to understand. These numbers say it all. What they did is despised. The No. 1 achievement that they are going home and they think they can brag about, people hate. That is why they are not having townhall meetings. That is why when Republican Senators and Congressmen go to their townhall meetings, they get booed--not because people are mean but because people are struggling to deal with the consequences of the Big Beautiful Bill.

The American people know Donald Trump is dead wrong. That is why his numbers, his popularity, have declined significantly.

Republicans can't magic-talk their way out of this ``Big Ugly Bill'' because the real-life impacts back home are inescapable and are devastating.

Government Funding

Mr. President, now on avoiding a Republican shutdown, in less than a month, Republicans will face their greatest test under the Trump administration: whether or not they will work in a commonsense, bipartisan way to keep the government open and funded.

The only way--the only way--to avoid a shutdown is to work in a bipartisan way with a bill that can get both Democratic and Republican votes in the Senate.

As I have said for months, Democrats want to keep the government open in a bipartisan, commonsense way. That is why we supported bipartisan appropriations bills in July. But the ball now is in the Republicans' court--in Leader Thune's court, in Speaker Johnson's court.

Republicans cannot expect Democrats to go along with a partisan bill that they concoct without any input, without any changes that America wants and the Democrats are fighting for. Republicans cannot expect Democrats to go along with a partisan bill. We are not going to bail Republicans out of their own chaos, out of their own failed policies.

If Republicans choose a go-it-alone approach, if Republicans continue to pass legislation that raises costs and devastates the American people, if Republican Senators keep bowing down to Donald Trump even though they know what he is doing is unpopular and they know he is in a bubble, talking to rich people and nobody else, thinking he can bamboozle everybody else, they will be responsible if a shutdown happens.

As everyone knows, the clock is ticking. We have fewer than 13 legislative days to go. But so far, Republican leaders have been MIA. They just don't know what to do.

At the start of the August recess, Leader Jeffries and I wrote to the Republican leaders, saying: Let's have a sitdown. Let's talk about how to keep the government open.

We heard nothing--nothing.

Leader Jeffries and I last week reached out again--again--to sit down to talk, to plan a strategy for keeping the government open. Again, crickets--nothing. We heard nothing from them, and time is short.

So what are the Republicans going to do? I know they are struggling. I know they are divided in their caucuses, both in the House and the Senate. The House and Senate Republicans are divided, while we Democrats are unified. Leader Jeffries and I and our two caucuses are in lockstep that we want bipartisan negotiations and a bipartisan bill--a truly bipartisan bill.

So what are the Republicans going to do? Do they want to continue their ``our way or the highway'' approach? Are they going to continue to go at it alone? Are we going to continue to hear nothing from them? Are the Republicans going to keep giving the finger to everyone in Washington who wants to seek a commonsense, bipartisan governance and solution? I hope not because that is the path that leads to a shutdown--a Republican shutdown, a Trump shutdown.

Republicans can't just say they want to avoid a shutdown; they have to prove it. They need to sit down with us and work with us on something Democrats can support. And actions speak a lot louder than words. We need to see some action from Republican leaders showing they are serious about preventing a shutdown at the end of the month.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my colleague from Virginia Senator Kaine that would reauthorize the only federally funded programs specifically designed to develop a healthcare workforce focused on the care of older Americans. The Geriatrics Workforce Improvement Act would reauthorize two programs important to training specialists who care for our older adults: the Geriatrics Workforce Enhancement Program and the Geriatrics Academic Career Awards Program.

The number of Americans age 65 and older is growing. In 2020, there were just three States in which senior citizens outnumbered children: Maine, Vermont, and Florida. Today, there are 11 States that have more seniors than children, and Maine has the oldest population in the Nation. The percentage of the U.S. population over age 65 rose by 3 percent, to 18 percent, in just 1 year.

The fact is, the United States is facing a shortage of geriatric health professionals and direct service workers to support our aging population. The American Geriatrics Society projects that we will be short some 1,700 geriatricians by the year 2036. Fewer than 7,000 of our Nation's nearly 1 million physicians are board-certified geriatricians. We need to train 1,600 geriatricians per year over the next 9 years to fill that gap.

Complicating this shortfall is the fact that as many as 90 percent of our older adults either have or will develop one or more chronic health conditions. So you put together many chronic conditions, an aging population, multiple medications, and changes that naturally occur in aging, and you have a situation making caring for older adults ever more complex and challenging. In any given year, it is expected that 30 percent of older adults will require specialized geriatric care.

Today, there are 42 Geriatrics Workforce Enhancement Programs in 37 States. I am pleased that since the last

reauthorization in 2019, this list has expanded to include such a program in the State of Maine. It is located at the University of New England.

For Maine, with an aging population of more than a quarter of a million Mainers over the age of 65 and only 36 geriatricians, there is an acute need to train more geriatric health professionals and direct service providers quickly to meet this growing demand. Maine's program, known as AgingME, has brought much needed support to communities and families throughout the State. For example, AgingME has worked with other training and geriatrics-serving partners to develop a postgraduate credentialing program in geriatrics. Students who participate in the program complete more than 2,000 hours of training in medically underserved communities and rural areas of Maine.

AgingME has also worked to increase the number of community-based learning programs, such as falls prevention education programs in rural areas. It has also helped to connect family caregivers with resources for Alzheimer's and related dementias through its website and through partnerships with Maine's Area Agencies on Aging.

Nationally, the geriatric workforce program has produced significant outcomes. In 2022, the most recent reported year, Geriatrics Workforce Enhancement Programs trained nearly 72,000 students, professionals, patients, caregivers, and faculty. These programs were also able to offer faculty development training programs and activities, provide outreach and education to families and caregivers on care delivery for older adults, and train patients in self-management of their conditions. More than 2.2 million individuals have been trained through these programs, of whom 57 percent were patients and their caregivers.

And all of us know the vitally important role that family caregivers play in taking care of their older relatives, often their parents. But we also know that they need help in doing so, including training. Approximately a third of the courses offered focused on Alzheimer's disease and other dementias. Patients and caregivers also took courses on other topics related to the health needs of older adults, such as geriatric health, emergency response training, and community health.

Our legislation would also reauthorize the geriatrics career advancement award program. Established in 1998, this program was created to increase the number of faculty engaged in geriatric education.

Transitioning from clinical training and practice into an academic faculty role can be challenging. It requires gaining new skills as an educator, skills not typically taught in clinical training programs. Geriatrics Academic Career Awards support early career development for emerging leaders by providing funding that supports their efforts to develop skills as an educator in geriatrics.

The Geriatrics Workforce Improvement Act would reauthorize these two vitally important programs at a combined amount of $48.2 million per year over the next 5 years. It really is a modest investment that will help ensure that our older Americans have the expert care that they need, that their caregivers are provided with training, that other support employees and healthcare providers receive the skills that they need as well. Together, these programs will continue to train the current workforce and family caregivers while developing a cadre of emerging leaders in geriatric education in a variety of disciplines.

In doing both, we can help to ensure that our aging Americans will be cared for by a healthcare workforce specifically trained to meet their unique and often complex health needs for decades to come.

This will lead to improved care for older Americans while saving valuable resources and reducing unnecessary costs.

I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation to strengthen and extend these two important programs.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my colleague from Virginia Senator Kaine that would reauthorize the only federally funded programs specifically designed to develop a healthcare workforce focused on the care of older Americans. The Geriatrics Workforce Improvement Act would reauthorize two programs important to training specialists who care for our older adults: the Geriatrics Workforce Enhancement Program and the Geriatrics Academic Career Awards Program.

The number of Americans age 65 and older is growing. In 2020, there were just three States in which senior citizens outnumbered children: Maine, Vermont, and Florida. Today, there are 11 States that have more seniors than children, and Maine has the oldest population in the Nation. The percentage of the U.S. population over age 65 rose by 3 percent, to 18 percent, in just 1 year.

The fact is, the United States is facing a shortage of geriatric health professionals and direct service workers to support our aging population. The American Geriatrics Society projects that we will be short some 1,700 geriatricians by the year 2036. Fewer than 7,000 of our Nation's nearly 1 million physicians are board-certified geriatricians. We need to train 1,600 geriatricians per year over the next 9 years to fill that gap.

Complicating this shortfall is the fact that as many as 90 percent of our older adults either have or will develop one or more chronic health conditions. So you put together many chronic conditions, an aging population, multiple medications, and changes that naturally occur in aging, and you have a situation making caring for older adults ever more complex and challenging. In any given year, it is expected that 30 percent of older adults will require specialized geriatric care.

Today, there are 42 Geriatrics Workforce Enhancement Programs in 37 States. I am pleased that since the last

reauthorization in 2019, this list has expanded to include such a program in the State of Maine. It is located at the University of New England.

For Maine, with an aging population of more than a quarter of a million Mainers over the age of 65 and only 36 geriatricians, there is an acute need to train more geriatric health professionals and direct service providers quickly to meet this growing demand. Maine's program, known as AgingME, has brought much needed support to communities and families throughout the State. For example, AgingME has worked with other training and geriatrics-serving partners to develop a postgraduate credentialing program in geriatrics. Students who participate in the program complete more than 2,000 hours of training in medically underserved communities and rural areas of Maine.

AgingME has also worked to increase the number of community-based learning programs, such as falls prevention education programs in rural areas. It has also helped to connect family caregivers with resources for Alzheimer's and related dementias through its website and through partnerships with Maine's Area Agencies on Aging.

Nationally, the geriatric workforce program has produced significant outcomes. In 2022, the most recent reported year, Geriatrics Workforce Enhancement Programs trained nearly 72,000 students, professionals, patients, caregivers, and faculty. These programs were also able to offer faculty development training programs and activities, provide outreach and education to families and caregivers on care delivery for older adults, and train patients in self-management of their conditions. More than 2.2 million individuals have been trained through these programs, of whom 57 percent were patients and their caregivers.

And all of us know the vitally important role that family caregivers play in taking care of their older relatives, often their parents. But we also know that they need help in doing so, including training. Approximately a third of the courses offered focused on Alzheimer's disease and other dementias. Patients and caregivers also took courses on other topics related to the health needs of older adults, such as geriatric health, emergency response training, and community health.

Our legislation would also reauthorize the geriatrics career advancement award program. Established in 1998, this program was created to increase the number of faculty engaged in geriatric education.

Transitioning from clinical training and practice into an academic faculty role can be challenging. It requires gaining new skills as an educator, skills not typically taught in clinical training programs. Geriatrics Academic Career Awards support early career development for emerging leaders by providing funding that supports their efforts to develop skills as an educator in geriatrics.

The Geriatrics Workforce Improvement Act would reauthorize these two vitally important programs at a combined amount of $48.2 million per year over the next 5 years. It really is a modest investment that will help ensure that our older Americans have the expert care that they need, that their caregivers are provided with training, that other support employees and healthcare providers receive the skills that they need as well. Together, these programs will continue to train the current workforce and family caregivers while developing a cadre of emerging leaders in geriatric education in a variety of disciplines.

In doing both, we can help to ensure that our aging Americans will be cared for by a healthcare workforce specifically trained to meet their unique and often complex health needs for decades to come.

This will lead to improved care for older Americans while saving valuable resources and reducing unnecessary costs.

I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation to strengthen and extend these two important programs.