Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to call for the confirmation of a highly qualified nominee to the Department of Education.

Over the past year and a half, we all know that this pandemic has made life harder for so many Americans but especially students across the country, disrupting their classrooms and their learning, challenging their mental health, and deepening inequities.

And while we have made significant progress, our work to get everyone through this pandemic is far from over, to say nothing of the challenges in our education system that predate the pandemic. For example, rooting out systemic racism at every level, ensuring students have safe modern schools and infrastructure, addressing the student debt crisis and high cost of higher education, and ending the epidemic of campus sexual violence, just to name a few.

In light of all of these challenges, we need a fully staffed education department to help see our schools through this pandemic and to help us build back stronger and fairer, which is why I have come to the floor today to call for the Senate to confirm Lisa Brown, the nominee to be general counsel for the Department of Education.

I won't recite her significant experience, but suffice it to say she has great public service credentials in the executive branch of our government over many years. Lisa Brown proved herself well--I should say, proved herself well prepared for the work ahead when we had our Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing with her and she was passed out of the committee on a bipartisan voice vote. I will say that again--a bipartisan voice vote.

She is a highly qualified nominee and should not be a controversial one. Students, parents, and educators deserve to have her confirmed so she can get to work for our communities. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting her.

Mr. President, at this time, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the following nominations en bloc: Calendar No. 188, 255, and 256; 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 with no intervening action or debate; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon, almost the evening now, to reflect on the sad news that we received today that Rich Trumka, the president of the AFL-CIO, passed away today.

I wanted to try to provide some perspective, at least from my vantage point as a Pennsylvanian, because he was a son of Pennsylvania, born in Southwestern Pennsylvania, in Greene County.

Greene County, for those who don't know where it is, is in the furthest southwestern corner of our State, the corner where Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia meet.

Rich Trumka was a man who fought his whole life in the cause of justice, fighting on behalf of working men and women. Before he became president of the AFL-CIO, obviously a national position, he also, as a very young man--I think he might have been 32 at the time--served as the president of the United Mine Workers of America, that union. And that was during a very difficult time for coal miners and their families.

And then, in that position and in so many others, he fought for workers everywhere, literally the world over--not just here in America but workers in South Africa and other parts of the world.

So to sum up what he meant to this country is difficult, but I think it can be said of Rich Trumka that he spent every day of his adult life advancing the cause of justice: the cause of justice for workers; the cause of economic justice, social justice, and racial justice. He dedicated his life in service to American workers and their families.

I wanted to reflect a little bit about two parts of his life: first of all, his roots and then, secondly, his work and his contributions.

I mentioned that Rich was a native of Greene County, PA--Southwestern Pennsylvania--a coal county. He was not just a miner himself as a young man, before and actually overlapping, really, getting a degree at Penn State and then eventually getting a law degree at Villanova University, but he

worked in the coal mines himself. He was a third-generation miner. Both his father and grandfather and uncles--just like any coal-mining community, virtually everyone was working in the mines.

The town that he was born in and raised in goes by the name of Nemacolin, PA, in Greene County, right on the Greene County-Fayette County border. And it was that kind of community, a coal-mining community, as was most of Greene County in those days.

I think of this community from the perspective of my own ancestors' background. I come from the other end of the State, all the way up in the northeastern part of the State--Scranton, Lackawanna County, Northeastern Pennsylvania, also a coal community. Lackawanna County, Luzerne County, Carbon County, Susquehanna County, Northumberland County--I may have left one out, but they were the main counties that were producing anthracite coal, hard coal. Where Rich and his family were living was so-called bituminous coal--soft coal, as they used to call it.

In 1894, the great novelist Stephen Crane, who is famous for, among other novels, ``The Red Badge of Courage''--Stephen Crane visited a coal mine near my hometown of Scranton, and he was, at the time, a very young man. I think he passed away before the age of 30. So he was in his twenties when he wrote a long essay about visiting this coal mine, a beautiful description but a haunting description of what a coal mine was like in 1894.

Now, when Rich Trumka went into the mines in the late sixties, of course, there were great advancements to protect workers, new technology, other protections that his ancestors and mine would not have benefited from. But you are still going underground. You are still going every day into that darkness, into that place of so many risks, what Stephen Crane called a place of ``inscrutable darkness, a soundless place of tangible loneliness.''

That is how he described his first impression of a coal mine, when Crane was just in his twenties. Later, he described all the ways you could die in that coal mine, what he called the 100 perils of dying in a coal mine. Of course, this is in the context of the 1890s, but he said:

There is an insidious, silent enemy in the gas. If the huge

fanwheel on the top of the earth should stop for a brief

period, there is certain death. If a man escapes the gas, the

floods, the ``squeezes'' of falling rock, the cars shooting

through little tunnels, the precarious elevators, the hundred

perils, there usually comes to him an attack of ``miner's

asthma'' that slowly racks and shakes him into the grave.

He was talking about pneumoconiosis, what they used to call miner's asthma in the old, old days.

Rich Trumka understood that. His own family members had died from that same cause of death. It wasn't some theory or some passage he read in a history book or even a passage that he might have read from Stephen Crane. He lived it. His father and his grandfather and his extended family and his community lived it.

And that awareness, that understanding of danger in the workplace, that understanding of suffering that workers still face today--in a different context but certainly faced in a coal mine all those years ago--is part of who he was. And to understand Rich Trumka and his contributions to American working men and women, you have to understand where he came from, those roots.

So I am thinking about that today because of the connection to my own region of Pennsylvania; really, the connection to my own family. I am far removed from it. We had, I guess, four generations before me working the coal mines, but it kind of stopped when my grandfather worked there as a child and then was able to escape the mines.

These were people who not only understood labor and suffering and contribution to their community, these are people who kept their promises. That is why we fought so hard just a couple of years ago--the Presiding Officer was one of the people waging this battle--to get healthcare benefits for retired miners. They waited year after year after year, when we finally had a breakthrough. And one of the arguments we were making is, these miners had kept their promise. They were told by their country, by their government--the Federal Government--that those benefits would be there for them. And the Federal Government was not, at that time, keeping its promise.

You had miners who had kept their promise to their country--sometimes serving in combat and World War II or the Korean war or Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan--but also keeping their promise to their employer to work every day in the most dangerous job in the world, and, of course, they kept their promise to their family.

So Rich Trumka knew what it meant to make a commitment and to keep your promise, to never break faith with those to whom you had made the promise. And that is why workers all over the country trusted him. They knew that he came from them, that he understood their struggles, and that he kept his promises. So to understand the life of Rich Trumka and what he meant to this country, what he meant to workers, you have to understand his roots in the coal mines.

How about his work? Well, it was a lifetime of fighting battles tooth and nail for workers, first for coal miners and then for workers across the board, represented by the AFL-CIO.

And there is no way, if I had a half an hour or several hours--there is no way I could encapsulate his work leading the AFL-CIO. So I won't try to do that. But suffice it to say, if there was a battle on healthcare or pensions or the minimum wage or the right to organize and bargain collectively, Rich Trumka was at the center of it, often the leader of all those battles, and it is noteworthy--and this, of course, applies to Rich Trumka but also any labor organization or any labor leader--often fighting battles for the rest of us, battles that they had already won. Rich Trumka was trying to preserve the protections of the Affordable Care Act, and yet as the leader of the AFL-CIO, unions have already bargained and negotiated for healthcare benefits. But he knew that other people who were not members of a union needed that protection, needed the protection and the security that a family would need that the Affordable Care Act would provide.

The minimum wage, another example. Unions had already bargained for their wage--in almost every instance, higher than minimum wage. But there they were, and there he was, Rich Trumka, on the street, marching and battling for an increase in the minimum wage, even though his entire membership already had a higher wage, always helping those who didn't have power.

It is difficult on a day like today to be comprehensive in a recitation of all that Rich Trumka contributed to working men and women and, by extension, our country.

But I think our best tribute is not what we will say in a floor speech or in a statement or even in a eulogy, as important as those words are, as important as it is to pay tribute--maybe the best tribute of all that we can contribute, that we can offer in memory of Rich Trumka, is to keep up the work, to pick up the banner and keep marching, keep fighting. And we have one of those opportunities in the next few months in the opportunity that presents itself in the form of a piece of legislation that Senator Murray talked about from the floor today and she has led the fight on--the PRO Act, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, that Rich Trumka spent his whole life--or, I should say, the most recent years of his life trying to enact into law. Our tribute to him should be to pass that piece of legislation.

Let me conclude with condolences for Rich's family, especially his wife Barbara and his son and the men and women of the AFL-CIO who have lost a leader but, more importantly, have lost a friend, someone who would walk with them in every battle. May it be said of all of us that we will walk those same battle lines with him.

With that, I will yield the floor

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the distinguished life and career of Patrick J. Solano, who passed away on January 23, 2021. I am proud to remember Pat, a resident of Pittston Township, PA, decorated World War II veteran and lifelong public servant. Pat will be remembered at an annual golf tournament in Luzerne County on August 6.

In 1942, Pat was drafted by the U.S. Army Air Corps after he graduated from Pittston Township High School. During his military career, he served as a flight engineer on 23 combat missions with the Eighth United States Air Force Heavy Bombardment Group, aboard the B-17 Flying Fortress. For his service during World War II, he was awarded the Group Presidential Citation, the Air Force Medal with two oakleaf clusters, and the Europe Combat Theater Medal with two Bronze Stars.

Pat's service to our country did not end with World War II, as he came home and embarked on a lifetime of public service at both the local and State level in Pennsylvania. He was recognized as a trusted political adviser for almost 50 years and served in the administrations of nine Governors of both political parties. His service to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania crossed party lines, and he became known as a voice of reason and a unifying force in Harrisburg.

He served in the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Regulation, later known as the department of environmental protection. Later, he was appointed the acting secretary for the department of conservation and natural resources when it was first created in 1995. Pat helped to shape the future of the department and its mission to conserve and sustain Pennsylvania's natural resources for present and future generations.

My thoughts and prayers are with Pat's wife, Marie; his children, Mary Pat, Cathy, Anita, Rita, Liz, and Anne; his 11 grandchildren and 3 great-grandchildren; and his countless friends.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Madam President, I wanted to offer some remarks about two of our former colleagues who passed away, and I know many have already spoken about both of their lives and their contributions, their public service. And so I am not speaking today about the pending legislative business but just wanted to make sure that I took some time today to talk about both of these individuals. I will go in the order of their passing just in the last week, really.

The first is the former Senator from Wyoming, Mike Enzi, who served in this institution since being elected in 1996 and then left the Senate after 2020 was concluded. I will have a longer statement that I will ask consent to put in the Record. But I just wanted to share some personal reflections because sometimes, when you outline someone's career in a position, whether it is in government or otherwise, that doesn't really tell the story about who they were, and we all have different impressions, but it is remarkable how often, in the last couple of days, Members of both parties in the Senate have commented on Mike Enzi as a person.

I said last weekend at the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, of which he and I were both members and overlapped for a number of years, that Mike Enzi was the paragon of decency, and that is probably an understatement. ``Decency'' isn't a word that is often attached to public officials, unfortunately, but in Mike's case, it applied. He was a decent human being and treated everyone with respect, and we could all learn more than one lesson from the way he treated people and the way he conducted himself as a person and the way he conducted himself as a U.S. Senator.

Just in terms of work, a number of us can share stories about issues we worked with Mike on. I can share one or two.

One, in particular, I remember a bill that had not been ``reauthorized.'' That is another fancy Washington word for taking a policy or taking a program and, in a sense, reinstituting it by updating it and, maybe, getting authorization to have either new policy or new appropriations or additional appropriations. But we wanted to reauthorize the Perkins Career and Technical Education Program, but the bill had not been acted on. The proposal, the bill itself, or versions of the bill were around for something like, oh, gosh, about 12 years, between 2006 and 2018, before we finally got it done.

I won't walk through the policy but just share a personal story that, when Mike Enzi and I were working on the Senate version of it--there was another version in the House very similar, if not identical, but it needed work in both Chambers--we were working with then-Chairman Alexander, Lamar Alexander and the ranking member, Patty Murray. So the four of us had to work very hard to get it done. But once it was done, I remember standing here on the floor, and Mike Enzi was standing on that side of the floor talking about what we had done. And as I was paying tribute to his work and commending him, I thought: My goodness. I may be getting him in trouble back home by having a Democrat compliment him so much, and he was complimenting my work. But I remember that because it was a typical--in some ways, a very typical Mike Enzi work product. It defied resolution for a long time, but he stayed at it, and he stayed in the room, so to speak, until we had it done.

So I want to thank him for that work that will allow more and more Americans to have the opportunity to have that career in technical education that they would not have or at least not would have it in the manner that the bill set forth, which was a dramatic and substantial improvement in that kind of career in technical education, from a Federal Government perspective.

The final thought that I will share--because I want to be brief because I also have a statement to submit--are on our budget votes.

As many Americans know, if they are watching--and maybe they aren't watching when we do a budget resolution, but it is vote after vote, hour after hour, often well into not just the evening but well into the next morning. And to preside over that, as Mike was at the time as the chairman of the Budget Committee, I just recall him standing at the lectern, hour after hour, having to comment on every amendment, whether he opposed it or supported it, and if he opposed it, of course, he had to make an argument against it. That is part of the job of being the chair, standing there all those hours.

But even when he was making the case against Democratic amendments, which was often, and stating his opposition, there was no snarl; there was no--rarely political rhetoric. He would just state his objections very forthrightly and very soberly and then move on. There was no finger-pointing, no demonization of the other point of view. So I always appreciated how he did that in an environment where there often is that kind of invective flying back and forth.

So, Mike Enzi, when I say he was the paragon of decency, that applied to his whole life, and we know how terribly his family must miss him and how his State mourns the loss of Mike Enzi, but that loss was felt in a bipartisan fashion here on the Senate floor and within the Senate family.

Madam President, today, I wish to pay tribute to the distinguished life and career of Senator Michael B. Enzi, who passed away on July 26, 2021. Senator Enzi was an honorable public servant and decent man who always had a kind word for everyone in our shared office hallway in the Russell Senate Office Building. I was privileged to have spent 13 years working alongside him.

While Senator Enzi was born in Bremerton, WA, in 1944, he grew up in Wyoming, the same State he would devote more than four decades of his life to by serving in local, State, and Federal Government. He graduated with a bachelor's degree in accounting from George Washington University in 1966. Senator Enzi was dedicated to his education and his sense of civic responsibility, and he earned an MBA in retail marketing from the University of Denver in 1968 while also serving in the Wyoming Air National Guard from 1967 to 1973. After receiving his graduate degree, he followed his father's footsteps and worked as a shoe salesman and business owner.

Senator Enzi's long career in government started when he was elected mayor of Gillette, WY, in 1974. He served in the Wyoming State Legislature as a member of the House of Representatives and State Senate beginning in 1987. He was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1996 and would go on to serve 4 consecutive terms. It was during the 110th Congress that we became colleagues and began our committee work together, first on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and later on the Committee on Finance and the Committee

on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Senator Enzi loved ``solving problems for folks in Wyoming and America,'' and I am honored to have had the opportunity to work with him on bipartisan solutions to help Americans.

The passing of Senator Enzi is a terrible loss for his wife, Diana; his children, Amy, Emily and Brad; his four grandchildren, Trey, Lilly, Megan, and Allison. He will be dearly missed by his family, friends, and former staff. I echo my Senate colleagues and fellow citizens when I say that we are grateful for his service to our Nation. May he rest in peace.

Remembering Carl Levin

Madam President, and then just some additional comments on another colleague we lost this year, this time a Democratic Senator, Carl Levin, who served the people of Michigan starting in 1978--I think, almost immediately after serving on the city council in Detroit--and I will submit a statement about his life as well.

But Carl, as well, was decent and honorable, and I have no doubt that people in both parties had that same impression of him, dealing with him--again, I will say--as a person and as a U.S. Senator, as a public official.

Carl Levin had a work ethic which was second to none. I don't ever remember him in a setting where he wasn't working. It was as if he was never relaxed and kind of turned off. He was always on the floor, trying to get support for an amendment, trying to get support for a bill. And the difference between Carl and many of us is that he knew the detail of that bill sometimes as well or better, maybe, than the staff. He knew every part of the policy. If he were allowed to be on the Senate floor, with his jacket off, he would roll up his sleeves.

Someone was telling a story the other day how that was kind of an image we had of Carl; that his sleeves were always rolled up when he was working, but, of course, on the Senate floor, he wasn't allowed to do that. But it was emblematic, I think, that rolling up of his sleeves when he was traveling or addressing constituents or the like--it was emblematic of his work ethic and the scholarship that he put into the work he did for the people of Michigan and often for, of course, the workers. There have been stories that have been told in the last couple of days about him carrying around his union card when he worked in a factory as a young man.

He never forgot those workers. It wasn't just a symbol of a union card in his wallet; he never ever stopped fighting for them--workers in Detroit, whether they are autoworkers or otherwise.

So that is something we pay tribute to today, and his work on behalf of those who were powerless or those with little power, those who don't have a lobbyist, those who don't have the opportunity to influence legislation directly--Carl Levin always made sure that their voice was heard.

And as much as he was a supporter--and I think a consistent and strong supporter--of a strong national security, no Member of the Senate could say they did more than Carl Levin to support our national security, both in terms of what he supported, but in terms of his leadership on the Armed Services Committee, and ultimately as the chair of the committee, working in a very bipartisan fashion to keep us safe, working with Senators like John McCain and others, Democrat and Republican alike.

But even though in the midst of--or in the course of supporting national security you deal with big institutions, big defense contractors, big, powerful interests that he worked with and made sure were part of the best national security in the world, he was also very tough on those same big institutions; because, as many of you know-- many people here in the Senate know, Carl was the chairman of what is known as the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, maybe the most powerful subcommittee in the entire U.S. Senate, or at least for many years it was.

And as the chairman of that subcommittee, Carl Levin held the feet of powerful interests--held their feet to the fire over and over again with a cross-examination skill that very few Senators would possess, even Senators who were good lawyers.

And Carl Levin would not let those powerful interests up for air if he thought they had information that he needed to extract from them in the public interest. And anyone who appeared before him knew how tough he could be on the most powerful people and the most powerful institutions in the country, if not in the world.

So we appreciate Carl Levin's decency and the honorable service that he rendered, but we also appreciate how hard he fought for people who didn't have power.

I want to thank the senior Senator from Delaware for those kind, personal reflections about Carl Levin

Madam President, today I wish to pay tribute to the life and career of Senator Carl Levin, who passed away on July 29, 2021. As the longest-serving senator in Michigan history, Senator Levin was a role model as a person and as a public official.

Senator Levin was born on June 28, 1934 in Detroit, MI, the city he would call home for his entire life and continually fight for during his six terms in the Senate. I am proud to say that he received his bachelor's degree in political science at Swarthmore College, which is located in my home state of Pennsylvania, in 1956. During his undergraduate education he worked as a taxi driver and on an auto factory line. He would continue to keep his union card in his wallet for many years, a habit emblematic of his commitment to American workers. After graduating from Harvard Law School in 1959, he practiced law for several years before becoming an assistant attorney general and general counsel for the Michigan Civil Rights Commission, beginning his long career as a defender of civil rights.

Senator Levin first entered elected office as a member of Detroit City Council in 1969. In 1978, he was elected to the U.S. Senate, where he would earn a reputation as an effective legislator, tenacious investigator and person of integrity. He understood that serving in political office is a public trust and demanded the same degree of accountability and transparency from corporations and government that his constituents came to expect from him. Whether on the floor of the Senate or abroad during our trip to Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2008 when he served as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, Senator Levin led with humility and a sharp intellect.

Senator Levin's service in the Senate was the kind of public service we should all emulate and his death is a loss for our Nation and, of course, his loving family. My thoughts and prayers are with his wife, Barbara; his three daughters, Kate, Laura and Eric; his six grandchildren; and his nephew, Congressman Andy Levin, as they mourn his passing. May we all learn from Senator Levin's example, and may he rest in peace.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, thank you very much. I wanted to rise today to talk about a matter that has come before the Senate in the bill that we are considering, the United States Innovation and Competition Act. I rise to talk about a particular amendment that I have been working on. It is amendment No. 1853. Of course I urge the Senate to act quickly to approve this amendment to protect our supply chains that are critical to the national security of the United States.

I wanted to explain what the origin of this amendment has been. It goes all the way back to the beginning of the pandemic, the worst public health crisis in over 100 years in our Nation. At that time, as so many Americans remember, we watched in horror as access to masks, gloves, gowns, and even more sophisticated equipment, like ventilators and other critical supplies--when all of that was necessary for pandemic response, all of a sudden, it dried up.

The reason why we had such a shortage of supplies and personal protective equipment and the like was that supply chains were delayed, and those supply chains, of course, were originating in China, which we know is a country where the government is run by the Chinese Communist Party. That same ruling party and that government even tightened restrictions on the exports of masks and other personal protective equipment.

So we learned the hard way, the very hard way, just how dependent our supply chains are on goods originating in China. We learned how vulnerable we

all are, our Nation was and is, to the Chinese Government's whims, really the whim of the Communist Party in China, because it is a fact that they control the companies that produce and export the critical supplies we depend upon.

This amendment, amendment 1853, which, by the way, is bipartisan in ways that you don't see very much of in the Senate these days--three Democrats and three Republicans coming together on this bipartisan amendment. It is an effort to enhance our national security at its core. That is what it is about, enhancing our national security, but unfortunately corporate forces are blocking it. They are even blocking a vote on it. They don't, apparently, want to see a vote on this bill, and they also don't want to include it in an agreement between both sides when the bill is about to be completed in a so-called managers' package as part of the bill.

We just want to get it done because I am interested in and my five cosponsors from both parties are interested in protecting U.S. national security.

What we read today in a publication, POLITICO Pro, the morning trade edition--I am just holding up a copy of it here, and I will just make reference to it. I don't think we have to add all of it to the Record, but here is the lead for POLITICO Pro this morning. The lead says this:

Trade groups representing some of the country's largest

corporations are staunchly opposing a Senate proposal that

would subject U.S. companies to a Federal review before they

can make certain investments in China or relocate critical

manufacturing capabilities there.

And then in the body of the report, when it gets down to reporting in detail who is opposing this amendment and what they are saying, it says that this amendment has ``riled up big business.''

``Riled up big business.'' Just imagine that. Big corporations riled up because a bipartisan group of Senators is coming together to protect national security, and they are riled up. They don't seem to support us in this.

Here is what one of the organizations that would go on the record--of course, you have a lot of big corporations that are hiding behind trade groups--trade associations, I should say. They don't have the guts to stand up and oppose this. They are hiding behind organizations.

Here is one of the organizations, and I am quoting Anna Ashton, vice president of government affairs at the U.S.-China Business Council. Here is what they have to say:

We long have said that national security should not be

defined in a vague way.

``Vague way.'' We are not vague in this. We are very clear. And then she goes on to criticize it.

So what are we talking about here? We are talking about an effort to protect U.S. national security not just in the context of the pandemic but more broadly. We have had corporations for more than a generation now offshoring work and business to China and other places. Because they are seeking cheaper production and labor costs, these companies have been moving production of manufactured goods overseas, often to China. When you move your supply chain overseas, you are at the mercy of the laws and regulations of the country you move to, and in this case, you are at the mercy of the Chinese Communist Party.

Now, this isn't a big problem when offshoring goes to allied or liberal democracies, allied or liberal democratic countries, but it does become a problem when the offshoring goes to foreign adversaries like China and Russia that don't play by the rules.

So how do we solve the problem? How do we ensure that the panic and the powerlessness that we all experienced way back in the spring of 2020 and beyond--how do we make sure that doesn't happen again? How do we make sure that the most powerful Nation in the world, the most powerful Nation in human history, is not at the mercy of the Chinese Communist Party or the Russian Federation or any other country--at their mercy not just generally but at their mercy for something as simple as personal protective equipment, gowns and gloves and masks? How do we make sure we are never in that predicament again?

Well, one of the things we need to do is have a process to screen outbound investment. We have had for the better part of 50 years a screen for inbound investment, OK? We have a committee that has done that since the midseventies. All we are doing here with this amendment is putting in place an outbound investment screen so that outbound investment screen will make sure that our national security interests are not compromised.

We don't want to create further dependency on supply chains that are located in the countries--where the country is a foreign adversary.

So this amendment 1853 is modeled after legislation that I authored a few years ago, the National Critical Capabilities Defense Act, where we have reintroduced a bipartisan bill with Senator Cornyn, the senior Senator from Texas.

I mentioned earlier that this is three Democrats and three Republicans on this amendment--Senator Cornyn, as I made reference to; Senator Stabenow, Democrat from Michigan; Senator Rubio, Republican Senator from Florida; Senator Kaine, Democrat from Virginia; and Senator Tillis, Republican Senator from North Carolina. They have all supported an amendment that would establish this process to screen outbound investments and the offshoring of critical supply chains to foreign adversaries like China and Russia to ensure the resiliency of critical U.S. supply chains.

It would require that companies disclose before--before--they offshore national critical capabilities to foreign adversary--foreign adversaries, plural. So it is a commonsense approach to deal with a problem that preexists the pandemic but came into sharp focus when we were totally at the mercy of the Chinese Communist Party.

The review process is designed to identify vulnerabilities and to provide a suite of recommendations to the President, and it emphasizes remedial action such as support to domestic industries, like increased research and development investment, utilization of manufacturing institutes, among others.

The proposal encourages supply chain diversity, and the bill is limited in scope, only covering foreign adversaries like China and Russia. It is limited in its purview. It looks only at national critical capacities.

The amendment establishes an interagency committee led by the U.S. Trade Representative to oversee the review process for capacities that are deemed ``critical'' to U.S. national security.

This committee would focus on outbound investment or offshoring of these critical capacities, supply chains, domestic production, and manufacturing to foreign adversaries. I would note the committee would not--would not--review outbound investments to allied countries or any country not on the affirmative list.

The amendment would also establish a process to conduct outgoing--I am sorry--ongoing evaluation of critical supply chains. In short, the amendment would ensure the United States can respond to the needs of our Nation and those who may call upon us in times of crisis.

But here is the problem: This commonsense, bipartisan amendment, in a town that doesn't do a lot of bipartisanship, is being opposed by corporate interests. Powerful corporate interests are opposed to this amendment and, in some cases, are actively working against it to shut it down.

There has been a whisper campaign by corporate lobbyists to kill this bipartisan amendment that protects our national security. They are lobbying against an amendment--against an amendment--that will ensure the United States has better visibility on supply chain vulnerabilities so we can respond to the needs of our Nation and those who call upon us in these times of crisis.

If a company wants to offshore semiconductors to China, we need to know about it, and the President could block it if that activity is a risk to national security. Yet business interests like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the U.S.-China Business Council are organizing against this commonsense proposal.

And, as I mentioned earlier, these groups of big corporations are hiding behind their trade associations to do the work that they are doing. They are fearmongering, and they are spreading

misinformation. This effort is not surprising because often you have that in Washington. We have interests that come together, even in the face of something that would help our national security.

Our Nation and workers pay dearly when companies prioritize their bottom line over supply chain resiliency and security. When they offshore jobs and technology to foreign adversaries like China, our country pays for that, pays dearly.

I mentioned the U.S.-China Business Council and their opposition. The association for businesses--that is what this is--the association for businesses in China--businesses in China, and they are opposing.

So they have got a basic choice to make here, not just that organization but any organization in any company. It is a real simple choice. You can choose national security and a commonsense way to do that, in a bipartisan amendment, or you can just choose profits in places controlled by foreign adversaries. It is a real simple choice. This is not complicated. They will try to make it complicated, but it is not.

Let me start to address some of their arguments. I mentioned earlier that the industry says that covered products are defined in a ``vague way''--a ``vague way.'' That is what they say.

That is not true. We provide specifics on personal protective equipment, medical equipment, goods that are critical to the electricity grid or disaster preparedness, and we expect a robust rulemaking process. Everyone knows that. When you pass a bill like this or a policy like this, rulemaking follows. We specifically and clearly state that rulemaking needs to provide specifics for firms to understand what and when--what they need to disclose and when they need to disclose it.

We limit review exclusively to foreign adversaries like China and Russia. If a U.S. firm is offshoring critical capacities to a foreign adversary, the U.S. Government should know about it.

But again, that only applies to outbound investment to foreign adversaries. We are not talking about outbound investment to Germany. We are not talking about outbound investment to Canada or Australia. We are talking about China and Russia here.

So we took business comments, and we took edits from business groups around the country. We tried to ensure it was specific to threats while also providing flexibility for the administration to adapt and to adjust.

So what is Big Business really opposing? They are opposing better visibility on when they offshore these critical capacities to a, in this case, Chinese Communist Party, a Communist country, that happens to be a foreign adversary in so many areas of our bilateral relationship. They are opposing better visibility on engagement with a government that is involved in gross human rights abuses and forced labor and oppression of its people.

The old expression ``Sunlight is the best disinfectant'' applies here. Why would we allow a U.S. company to take an action that compromises our national security and disaster preparedness? So we engaged in good faith in taking reasonable comments from these big business associations. Businesses offshoring critical capacities to foreign adversaries should be everyone's concern, not just the concern of six Senators in the Senate and some others who have spoken in favor

Big name-brand companies don't want their names attached to this effort. That is why they are hiding behind their trade associations. But I want to be clear with them and clear to those who are listening. We know who you are; we know what companies are behind this; and we know what you are doing.

I am going to continue to work to pass this amendment or, if it ends up in a bill form, we are going to pass it because we are going to take steps here in the U.S. Senate, in a bipartisan fashion, to protect U.S. national security in this fashion. We are not going away.

So if these business groups think they are making progress today, we are going to defeat you. So just get ready for it because we are going to defeat you.

Now, I will hold some comments that I was going to make about some others who are opposing this. I will limit my comments today.

I want to just conclude with this thought. A lot of Members of this body talk really tough about China. They act tough with China. They give a lot of speeches. You know, there is a lot of hot air about China. They go on television and talk about it, but then sometimes when it comes to taking on big interests, they cut and run. I would hope that those three Republican Senators aren't the only Senators on their side who are willing to stand up for this critical national security issue.

Again, it is a real simple choice. It is national security or getting profits at the mercy of a Chinese Communist Party. We are asking for a vote on this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to the life and career of John Michael Elliott, who passed away suddenly on March 12, 2021. It is my honor to reflect on the legacy John built for his family and his community. For me and for my family, John M. Elliott was a faithful friend.

Community, heritage, and history were all important to John. Born in Girardville, Schuylkill County, PA, on July 8, 1941. John later graduated magna cum laude from St. Vincent College, where he played varsity baseball. He received the American Jurisprudence Award from the Georgetown University Law Center and launched a successful 55-year legal career. John Elliott never forgot his Schuylkill County roots or Irish-American heritage.

John was a skilled lawyer who became chairman and CEO of Elliott Greenleaf, the law firm he founded in 1990. To John, law was a profession as well as a means by which he could advance his greater purpose in life: to be of service to others. He was talented and tenacious. In 1979, he worked to right a past wrong and won a posthumous pardon for Irish immigrant and Schuylkill resident, Jack Kehoe. In 2002, he won an age-discrimination case that resulted in the largest single-plaintiff jury verdict in the history of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. John was generous with his legal talents and imparted his knowledge onto the next generation of lawyers as a lecturer for the American Law Institute, the American, Pennsylvania and Philadelphia Bar Associations, the National Institute for Trial Advocacy, and the Pennsylvania Bar Institute.

Outside of his law practice and lectures, John remained committed to service. He served as chairman of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, as a commissioner of the Delaware River Port Authority and as a member of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission and the Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board. He was appointed by the U.S. Secretary of State to the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe's Conferences on the Human Dimension in Paris and on Democratic Institutions in Oslo and was a Presidential appointee to the White House Coal Advisory Commission. He was a steadfast supporter of St. Patrick's College in Maynooth, County Kildare, Ireland, for more than two decades. He was recognized twice for his efforts in 1995 when Cardinal Cahal B. Daly of Ireland dedicated the Salamanca Archives at the college in his honor and in 2001 when Cardinal Desmond Connell conferred upon him the Gold Medal of St. Patrick.

John received many accolades during his lifetime. He was awarded an LL.D. by his alma mater, St. Vincent College, and The Legal Intelligencer's 2015 Lifetime Achievement Award. His greatest achievement and source of pride was his family. Those fortunate enough to receive John's oversized holiday card every year were treated to references to his children and their families and candid images of each one of his grandchildren. The passing of John M. Elliott is a terrible loss for his wife, Eileen; his brother Thomas and sister Margaret Mary; his children, Jack, Heather, Kirwan, Kyle, and Thomas; his 14 grandchildren; and the rest of his family and many friends as they mourn his loss. His death is also a loss for our Commonwealth. May he rest in peace.

Mr. President, today is Workers Memorial Day, when we remember all of the workers in our Nation who have been killed, who have been injured, or who became sick on the job. On this day, we reflect upon the losses these workers and their families have suffered, and we also--and I believe we must--recommit ourselves to ensuring that every worker in America is safe on the job.

On a day like today, I am remembering Pennsylvania workers--not only the workers of today and the challenges they face in the workplace and the challenges their families still face, especially in the grip of and, we hope, ultimately in the aftermath of a terrible pandemic, but we are also, of course, remembering those who came before them, generations of workers in a State like Pennsylvania, folks who built this country, made this country run, and helped us win World War II, not to mention other battles, economic and otherwise.

So we are remembering those stories. I am also remembering, of course, on a day like today a lot of stories from my home area. I live in northeastern Pennsylvania. I live in Scranton, PA, which at one time was the anthracite coal capital of the world, that region was. Every family, every community seemed to have a story about one of their loved ones--sometimes a grandfather or a great grandfather or an uncle or a grandmother or some relative--and how they struggled in those days.

One story is not, unfortunately, atypical. This is a story about an 11-year-old boy working in the anthracite coal mines.

In those days, in order to pull the coal out of the coal mine, you had to fill a coal car with coal, but it had to be pulled out of the mines by a mule. I am talking about the early 1900s.

In this case, this 11-year-old boy--and, of course, it was permissible in those days to allow someone that young to work in a coal mine--this young kid reached down to get the straps that connected the mule to the coal car, and then, when he was bending down to pick up one of those leather straps, the rear hooves of the mule kicked him square in the face.

Here is the description of what happened after that mule kicked the 11-year-old, and I am reading from an account:

[The] kick hurled him over a loaded five-foot-high coal car

and into the wall of the mine--the ``face'' of the mine, as

the miners would say.

The 11-year-old had his nose smashed.

He had an open wound from his forehead across his eyebrow,

down his nose, through his lip, and into his chin.

No ambulance was called. No paramedics came to save him.

Work didn't even stop.

Then the account goes on to talk about how the mine boss had another young kid walk this 11-year-old out of the mine, taking the child home--a long, perilous journey home.

Once he finally made it home, [the 11 year old's] mother

called a doctor and they laid him on the dining room table,

where the doctor sewed the long gouge in his face back

together. There were no benefits--no worker's compensation,

no safety net in place to take care of the adult worker, much

less an injured child.

That is, unfortunately, an account that was all too common in those days. Much has changed, fortunately, but, candidly, not enough.

We mark today the 50th anniversary of the Occupational Safety and Health Act going into effect. It just happens to be today. This is a landmark achievement in the fight to guarantee every worker a safe workplace. It was passed because of the tireless efforts of workers and unions that stood up for their fellow working men and women and demanded government action that led to the so-called OSHA Act. There remains, of course, much work to be done to protect our workers.

Let's turn to the pandemic and our workers.

The COVID-19 pandemic has made clearer than ever the need for action to

strengthen workplace protections, ensure workers can stand up and advocate for safe workplaces.

The virus has touched every workplace in the country, presenting a new threat to workers' health on the job unlike any we have seen in our lifetimes.

Throughout the pandemic, millions of workers have been at risk--at risk of contracting the virus as they did their work, having to worry every day when they headed home about their health and, of course, the health of their families.

The death toll from this virus, this pandemic, is staggering. More than 570,000 Americans are dead; more than 26,000 in Pennsylvania. These, of course, were mothers and fathers and grandmothers and grandfathers, sisters and brothers, neighbors and friends

The disproportionate effect on people of color is also staggering-- those who are widely represented in the essential workforces that have continued to go to work every day throughout the pandemic. This disproportionate impact on people of color has been especially disturbing and devastating.

The toll never should have been this high, and workers never should have had to face the risk they faced every day during the pandemic.

To honor all of these workers and their families, we must continue to take action to protect them on the job and ensure that workers are never left as vulnerable as they were in the pandemic.

Now, we have made some steps--taken some steps recently. The American Rescue Plan, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Biden, has already been critical to helping protect workers from COVID-19. The rescue plan provided billions to help get Americans the vaccines they need and to ensure that frontline workers receive the supplies and personal protective equipment they need to stay safe on the job. It also included $100 million for OSHA to protect workers on the job. So we can celebrate that on this celebration of Workers Memorial Day. This $100 million in funding is essential to help defeat the pandemic but also, in the process, to keep workers safe.

We must ensure that policies are in place to strengthen our workplace safety laws and also to strengthen enforcement.

We must ensure that the highest standards--the highest standards-- which are informed by recent science, exist to protect workers from all threats to their health, whether it is exposure to COVID-19 in a grocery store or silica dust in a coal mine.

We must strengthen workers' ability, of course, to organize and bargain collectively by passing the PRO Act, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act. The PRO Act would ensure workers have a voice on the job and are able to advocate for safe working conditions.

We must ensure that OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and its sister Agency, MSHA, the Mine Safety and Health Administration, have the authority, the resources, and the personnel they need to protect workers every day of every year.

Our Nation's workforce has done heroic work throughout this pandemic. One part of that workforce that has done both essential and heroic work over the past year is our Nation's home- and community-based services workforce, often not talked about in the debates here in Congress.

These workers are the backbone of our caregiving infrastructure, and we know that as part of the rescue plan, President Biden--I am sorry-- as part of the American Jobs Plan the President has proposed and we have not yet passed, but we are working on it, President Biden has called for a $400 billion investment to be directed to invest in seniors and people with disabilities and to support this vital and undervalued workforce.

This great American idea to develop the best caregiving workforce in the world--not one of the best, not second or third, the best workforce in the world--to care for and to provide support and services to people with disabilities and seniors--this great American idea is an idea that is focused on that workforce, which is a workforce primarily of women of color making only $12 an hour.

We can't say that we have the best caregiving workforce in the world if we are not going to invest in that workforce and lift them up. The American people want this to happen. This is overwhelmingly popular. More than 70 percent of the American people want us to make this investment in home- and community-based services, thereby lifting up that workforce so that we can provide better care for people with disabilities and seniors so they can not only survive but also thrive.

Making this investment is a vital part of raising standards and working conditions for this essential workforce and for all workers.

Let me conclude with this, the story of the 11-year-old boy kicked in the face in the anthracite coal mines of northeastern Pennsylvania. That 11-year-old was my grandfather. His name was Alphonsus Liguori Casey, and he, like a lot of young kids, started in the coal mines at that age, at the age of 11, between--worked in the mines between 1905 and 1910. Of course, when he worked in the mines, there were no protections--virtually none, even for a child. Thank goodness we have made a lot of progress since then, but we still have a long way to go to make sure that all workers in all workforces are protected in their workplace.

We also have to make sure we are making the appropriate investments in them to call ourselves the greatest country in the world. We can't say we are the greatest country in the world if we are paying people $11 or $12 an hour to do the important work they have to do every day and want to do. It is a high calling to care for people with disabilities and seniors.

So just like that 11-year-old boy and so many like him in those days, we have to make sure that today's workforce is the subject of our protection, is the subject of our attention, and is the subject of our investment. Let's lift them up so that we have the best workforce in the world and the safest workplaces, not only on Workers Memorial Day but every day.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise, as my colleagues have tonight, to talk about gun violence again. It seems that only a few months pass, and we are here over and over again, talking about this uniquely American problem.

Tonight, we gather in grief--a lot of sadness throughout the country, people offering, as I do tonight, once again, condolences to the families in both the State of Georgia, the State of Colorado, and so many others--so many other families throughout the country who have lost a loved one just in the last week or month or within the last year.

But we also, I think, tonight have to do more than just offer condolences and offer support for the families. We have to ask ourselves some basic questions, and one question that keeps coming back every time we gather--at least for me it does and, I know, probably for a lot of Americans--is not simply why are we not beginning to solve this problem, why aren't we taking action. They are obvious questions we all ask. But one question that keeps coming to me over and over again is a simple question about the U.S. Senate: Will the U.S. Senate, once again, as it has now we can say year after year--will the U.S. Senate surrender to gun violence?

That is a question I have been asking myself. I have certainly asked it on this floor. Will the Senate continue to surrender to gun violence? And, by extension, therefore, the country is not taking action when we don't take action. The only way that we can begin to solve this problem over time is to take action here in the Senate.

The House has acted over and over again, as we know, bill after bill. In a larger sense, we have to ask ourselves: Is it really true? Will it be true again that the most powerful Nation on Earth--really, the most powerful Nation in the history of the human race--will that Nation once again surrender to this problem because of inaction here?

I know this is true in every State in the Union, but I certainly know it is true in Pennsylvania: The people of my home State and the people of America expect us to act. They don't expect us to surrender once again to this problem. They expect us to take action to pass commonsense gun measures that will, at a minimum, reduce the likelihood that we will have more mass shootings like we have experienced just in the last week and over and over again over months and now years. And even--even now we are moving into decades of mass casualty events involving guns.

So they expect us to act, not to genuflect to the gun lobby. And tonight we have to ask that question again: Will the U.S. Senate surrender to this problem and, really, by implication, surrender and genuflect to the gun lobby?

Tonight, I know that my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Murphy, and others have read through some names of victims of gun violence, and I will add to that list. It is about 20. Just--just a fraction, a tiny fraction, of those we lost just in the last couple of years from so many different States:

Kortlin Williams from the State of Missouri; Marcus Obrian Young from the State of North Carolina; Marquez Warden from Virginia; Marvin Scott from Maryland; Melvin Porter from Georgia; Omar Mohamed Juma from Texas; Russell Jones, also from Texas; Saveon Th'Marcus Washington from the State of Alabama; Angela Thompson from Oklahoma; Stephanie Lee from Ohio; Tahjier Lafleur from California; Teon Burwell from Virginia; Xavier Cancer from South Carolina; Brenda Sue Strawser Sines, Maryland; Tera'Lynn Cantrell from Arkansas; Teshundra Fortune from Mississippi; Quindarious Ford from Georgia; Raemel Richardson from Louisiana; Sarah Larocca from Colorado; and, finally, Andre Odom from Ohio.

I am not sure it is possible for any one of us who hasn't been--whose family has not been a victim of gun violence to in any way not only understand but even to offer the appropriate words that we try to offer to these families on a night like this and on so many other days and nights.

I always turn back to the words of others about what this might mean to those families. I just can't even imagine what it would be like to lose a family member to gun violence or to any violence, for that matter.

Remember the words of the great recording artist Bruce Springsteen. He wrote a song in the aftermath--the horror of the aftermath of 9/11, and he was trying to capture in a series of songs that he wrote and put in an album at the time capturing the loss, the pain, the pain of the loss that so many American families felt at that

time. And I always thought it was applicable, that kind of loss, to what these families feel when a member of their family is killed by gun violence.

Springsteen's refrain in that song--the name of the song is ``You're Missing,'' and he keeps using that refrain:

You're missing when I shut out the lights.

You're missing when I close my eyes.

You're missing when I see the sunrise.

That is the reality for these families. Every moment of their day will be a time when they will be missing that family member for God only knows how long.

So we are thinking of those families tonight who have loved and lost.

We are also remembering--and this is another area where we have not taken action--we are also remembering families that had a member of their family become a victim of gun violence, but they survived, but their life is changed unalterably. The life of that individual has changed. The life of his or her family changes and so many burdens they have to carry, having survived gun violence.

We know that 100 are killed each day--more than 40,000 across the country in our country. But we also know numbers about those who have survived: 230 people sustain a nonfatal gun injury every day, and it is estimated that about 10 million Americans have been shot and injured during their lifetime--10 million Americans.

We also know that gun violence injuries are more likely to occur in younger people. Each year, approximately 15,600 children and teenagers are shot and injured. Black children and teenagers are 14 times more likely than their White peers to die by gun homicide.

Those who survive--those huge numbers who survive--have their lives changed forever. The role that that victim plays in the family is made exponentially more different.

I will talk about one of those individuals tonight. His name is Azir Harris.

Azir Harris was 17 years old in February of 2018--February 15, to be exact. It was the day after the Parkland shooting in Florida. Azir was shot five times on his way to grab something to eat with two of his friends in South Philadelphia.

He was paralyzed from the waist down, caught in the crossfire of gun violence as an innocent bystander. Azir's life and his family's lives were turned upside down in seconds. Their house was just blocks away from where he almost lost his life--again, as I said, shot five times.

To navigate their two-story home, Azir's father would carry him up and down the stairs in their home. They searched desperately to relocate but were having trouble finding housing, which is often nearly impossible for victims of gun violence.

The family was eventually able to relocate into a home in North Philadelphia, but in the process, they were forced to leave behind some of their adult children in the old home they came from.

Azir continues to learn about how to navigate his new life in a wheelchair, and the family continues to struggle to find ways to improve his quality of life.

Now they are searching for housing outside of the city so they might be able to find a home with a backyard for Azir to enjoy.

Azir and his family will never be able to forget about this shooting--and he was shot five times--because they live with the consequences of that violence every single day. They are just one of millions who struggle financially, who struggle physically, who struggle emotionally because of the trauma of gun violence that has ravaged our communities, our schools, our churches, and our businesses.

So the U.S. Senate has an obligation on this part of the problem as well. We can't surrender to gun violence, and we can't surrender to the question of what we are going to do to help those who survive.

We certainly have to pass commonsense gun measures, as I mentioned before--something as simple and as overwhelmingly popular as universal background checks. And at the same time, we can pass a number of other commonsense measures, including a bill that I am leading here in the Senate and paired up with U.S. Representative Dwight Evans in the House, a great leader in our State from the city of Philadelphia. This bill is the Resources for Victims of Gun Violence, and Dwight Evans and I are working to get it passed.

The bill would create an interagency advisory council with experts from Federal Agencies, victims of gun violence, and victim assistance professionals. Among other things, this council would make it easier for victims of gun violence to access resources by assessing, gathering, and disseminating information about different benefits and programs that could assist the victims--the victims of gun violence, like Azir and his family.

But I come back to where I started as I conclude my remarks. We have to ask that question: Will the U.S. Senate once again surrender to gun violence, do nothing about the tragic loss of life that we have seen just in the last week, surrender to the carnage that we see not just this week and last week and month after month but now literally decade after decade?

There hasn't been on the floor of the U.S. Senate a significant, substantial debate on gun violence in I don't know how long; I guess since maybe 2013--8 years. There has been 8 years of virtually no debate and 8 years of not voting, not even passing a vote on these commonsense gun measures, because the gun lobby has created a blockade. So the Senate was not even permitted, I guess, under their rules--the rules of the gun lobby and the rules of the majority until recently-- prohibited from even debating, let alone voting on commonsense measures.

So while the victims of gun violence are burdened by all the changes in their lives and the expense and the trauma they live through, while others suffer through the consequence of losing a loved one and feeling that sense of missing someone every day, while all that is happening, the U.S. Senate has been frozen in place for 8 years at least. We haven't even voted on commonsense measures.

It is time for the Senate to act, not to genuflect to the gun lobby like so many in this Chamber seem to want to do year after year. It is time for the Senate to act, to pass commonsense gun reform at long last.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to speak this afternoon in support of the nomination of Xavier Becerra to serve as the next Secretary of Health and Human Services.

President Biden nominated Mr. Becerra, who currently serves as the attorney general of the State of California. Prior to his service in State government for the people of California, he served in the House of Representatives, representing a district in Los Angeles for 12 terms. He is someone I got to know in those years, especially in the debates about healthcare, which I will speak about in a moment.

But when a person is nominated to be a member of any Cabinet, they bring with them not just their experience but their life story, and Attorney General Becerra's story is a great American story. His own story and that of his family is a great American story, a story of hard work and sacrifice, overcoming obstacles, achieving excellence, not only in his time in school and his academic record but also excellence in his public service as he discharges the duties of the offices that he has held.

I mentioned that I knew him in the years we were debating healthcare here in Washington when he was a Member of the House. But just since his nomination, I met with him and questioned him closely on matters that are important to me and the people of Pennsylvania. I also asked him questions in not one but two--two--hearings because he just happens to be nominated to a Cabinet position where the confirmation is considered by two Senate committees, the Finance Committee and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, so I had the chance to question him in both hearings, both committees.

Through these conversations and based upon his long and distinguished record of public service, Attorney General Becerra has demonstrated that he

is the kind of leader our Nation needs at HHS during this challenging time.

He is a proven leader who spent his career fighting to expand healthcare--to expand it--protecting both patients and consumers and working to strengthen both Medicare and Medicaid.

As a Congressman, as I mentioned, he was instrumental in drafting and working to pass the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the so- called ACA. And as California's attorney general, he has led the fight to protect it.

Now, my view of the disagreement on the other side of the aisle is just that. This is someone who worked as a Member of Congress and then has worked as attorney general to pass and then uphold the ACA.

On the other side of the aisle, they don't like that because they have been committed as a party here in the Senate and in the House-- both Republican caucuses have been committed to two things on healthcare: destroying the ACA, which means destroying all protections for preexisting conditions and--it is important to add this--they have been dedicated to ending--not limiting, not cutting back--ending Medicaid expansion, which, of course, accounted for most of the healthcare gains. Millions of Americans have healthcare today because of the expansion of Medicaid. It is the official position of the Republican Party to end that--to say to all those millions of Americans: You don't deserve healthcare coverage. That is their position based upon what they have supported in bill after bill that came before the Senate. We know that. That is a fact. And until they move away from that position, they will try to take down the nomination of or oppose anyone who wants to uphold the ACA, uphold all protections for preexisting conditions, uphold and support the expansion of Medicaid, one of the best expansions of healthcare in American history, not just recent history, in all of American history.

So I would support Attorney General Becerra just based upon what he has done on healthcare because it happens to be in the best interests of the American people to expand healthcare and the best interests of the people I represent.

I don't come across many people in Pennsylvania coming up to me, saying: I want you to lessen the number of people in the United States or in my State that have healthcare. I want you to cut that back. I want you to cut back on the Medicaid Program--which folks on the other side of the aisle want to do as well.

They not only want to end Medicaid expansion--end it completely--they want to cut the Medicaid Program by hundreds of billions of dollars over 10 years. That is their official position. It has been their position for years to cut the Medicaid Program and to end Medicaid expansion--cut the Medicaid Program by hundreds of billions of dollars. So if you are against that, they are going to be opposing you, whether it is for confirmation or anything else, because they are the party that wants to cut Medicaid, not by $100 billion over 10 years, not by $200 billion or $300 billion. Look at their budgets year after year. They want to cut it $500 billion or $700 billion. One year they even proposed--here in the debates about the budgets, one year they even proposed cutting the Medicaid Program by $1 trillion. That was the official position of the Republican Party. So if you want to oppose them on that, then they will try to take you down.

The Medicaid Program, by the way, pays for half--almost half--of the births in America. Of the babies born in America, almost half of those births are paid for by Medicaid--the Medicaid Program--the program they want to cut by $500 billion, at least, and sometimes a lot more than that.

So that is why they are against him, because they want to cut back on healthcare.

Now, his leadership of this Agency could not come at a more important time. Our Nation is facing the greatest public health crisis in more than a century, since the horror of 1918. Now we are facing a similar challenge.

We also have a jobs crisis. So the faster we put this pandemic behind us, the better it is for creating a lot more jobs and lifting our economy out of the ditch that it has been in the last year.

So we need a strong leader at HHS. We need someone who has the experience, the integrity, to lead us in that Agency to help guide us out of the crisis. I am confident--very confident--that Xavier Becerra is that leader, and I urge my colleagues to vote in support of his nomination.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I wanted to speak in particular terms about the American Rescue Plan and in particular about the provision of home- and community-based services. We know that when we speak of these kinds of services, we are talking about services that benefit seniors across the country as well as Americans with disabilities. We are also concerned as well for the heroic frontline workers who provide those services, most of whom--virtually all of whom have been underpaid and, frankly, underappreciated for far too long.

Let me start with the provision of these home- and community-based services in terms of the people who are benefiting from these services. Right now, about 4 million Americans receive home care and home health services in their own homes or apartments. Receiving these services at home reduces the likelihood that that older American will be infected by the virus.

Serving and supporting older adults and people with disabilities reduces pressure on nursing homes and other congregate settings. We know that these kind of services, the home- and community-based services, make sure that seniors and people with disabilities have a chance to continue to live where they want to live, as opposed to living in a congregate setting. In many cases, that means they will have more contact with their families, reducing the loneliness and social isolation that can be damaging to their mental health. So this American Rescue Plan includes temporary Federal funding to States to increase Medicaid home- and community-based services.

If the bill were to pass, an additional $9.3 billion would be made available to States to ensure that workers who provide these services have the protection and resources they need to provide the care and to provide the services.

More than 200 organizations from around the country wrote to Congress in support of these new dollars. For months, SEIU, one of the great unions in America representing workers--healthcare workers; the disability community, as well; advocates for older adults like AARP and others--have rallied around the need for this funding.

This funding can be used to increase wages for direct-service providers, the workers. It can be used to secure additional personal protective equipment and testing supplies for workers and those that they support. Home- and community-based funds can also be used to help people transition from congregate settings back to their homes. It can also be used to provide services for the 800,000 Americans waiting for this kind of help.

For example, Ira Hall from Westmoreland County, PA, just right in the southwestern corner of our State, next to Pittsburgh, in that county, Ira will continue to receive services, and he will receive that service from his direct service worker, Ray Williams. I was able to visit both of these individuals last May during a virtual home visit.

Home- and community-based services make it possible for Ira, who has a developmental disability, to live in his own apartment. Ray, who is his direct service worker, helps Ira plan his day and helps him throughout his workday and helps him find the resources he needs to meet his goals.

During the pandemic, Ray's support made it possible for Ira to remain in his home and to be safe from contracting the virus. The services Ray provides also helps Ira maintain his physical and mental health. We know that the American Rescue Plan makes it possible for services like those Ira receives and Ray provides. It will also mean the agencies providing these services will continue to operate and provide essential home- and community-based services throughout the public health crisis.

Passage of the bill would be a down payment on securing strong and comprehensive home- and community-based services infrastructure, but it is only a down payment. This pandemic has revealed a fragile home care and home health system. These funds

should be the first step in creating home- and community-based services infrastructure that can serve seniors and all people with disabilities who want to live in their own homes and remain in their communities with their families, friends, and neighbors.

With the passage of this American Rescue Plan, we will be able to address the immediate pandemic needs of older adults, as well as people with disabilities. Let's work to ensure this first step starts to create the path to a robust, comprehensive home care and home health network in every State for every senior and every American with a disability.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following statement regarding the impeachment trial of the former President be printed in the Record.