Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise today to recognize the month of November as Pancreatic Disease Awareness Month on behalf of Americans across the country suffering from pancreatic diseases. Pancreatitis is inflammation of the pancreas, a large gland behind the stomach. The pancreas has two main functions, to make insulin and to make enzymes that help you digest food. Pancreatitis occurs when enzymes damage the pancreas. It can be acute or chronic, and either form can lead to pain, organ failure, diabetes, disability, and sometimes death. There remains a troubling lack of awareness about conditions of the pancreas, such as knowing the signs and symptoms and proper treatment. This can lead to years of misdiagnosis and increasing severity of the disease. While scientific progress has been made because of investment in medical research through the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense, treatment options for pancreatitis are limited. Chronic or severe cases may require organ removal or significant surgical procedures. I am proud to work with my colleagues on an annual basis to support and increase funding for Federal medical research programs to sustain progress toward innovative treatment options and better patient care. In addition to limited treatment options, people affected by pancreatic diseases face challenges with health coverage and access to specialty care. Progress has been made with the enactment of legislation like the No Surprises Act and adoption of an out-of-pocket cap in Medicare part D through the Inflation Reduction Act, but more can be done to lower out-of-pocket costs. As a member of the HELP, Finance, and Aging Committees, the three committees in the Senate that handle healthcare issues, I will continue to work with my colleagues to address coverage, access, and health equity issues impacting individuals affected by conditions of the pancreas, as well as patients across the country. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing November as National Pancreatic Disease Awareness Month.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, on Thursday, July 27, due to the sudden hospitalization of my mother, it was necessary for me to leave Washington before the Senate concluded voting on the National Defense Authorization Act. My Congressional Record statement explaining my absence that afternoon is included below. While I was present for the vast majority of votes on the National Defense Authorization Act, I was forced to miss four due to my unexpected and sudden departure. The outcomes of these votes were unaffected by my absence, but I wish for the Record to reflect how I would have voted had I not left to be with my mother in Pennsylvania: yea on Schatz amendment 1078, vote No. 209; yea on Rubio amendment 523, vote No. 210; yea on Reed amendment 1087, vote No. 211; and yea on passage of the bill, the National Defense Authorization Act, vote No. 212. My mother, Ellen Harding Casey, died peacefully at Regional Hospital, Scranton on August 11. I was grateful to have the chance to be with her during her final illness. July 27, 2023.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, due to my mother's sudden hospitalization late this afternoon for a serious illness, I need to leave Washington unexpectedly and immediately. As a result, I will miss the vote on final passage of the National Defense Authorization Act, as well as any remaining amendment votes. I would like the Congressional Record to reflect that I support final passage of this legislation. When I return to Washington following the August work period, I will submit another statement to the Record detailing how I would have cast my vote on each of the amendment votes I was forced to miss. Vote on Amendment No. 1078 I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Paul Katsarelis from my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's proceedings.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to respectfully request bipartisan support from my Senate colleagues on the Cornyn-Casey amendment No. 931, the Outbound Investment Transparency Act. This amendment would establish a program to provide visibility on U.S. investments going to the People's Republic of China and critical supply chains and technology sectors. Here is what the amendment does. The proposed amendment would establish a program led by the Department of the Treasury, in coordination with the Department of Commerce, that would require U.S. companies planning to invest in national security technology sectors in countries of concern to notify--notify--the Department of the Treasury before those deals are completed. This proposal has been vetted by industry, by the Senate Banking Committee, and by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. Those are the fundamentals of this amendment. We all know that this year's Defense bill that we are going to be voting on today that we started last week tackles the toughest national security issues that face our Nation, and technological competition with the People's Republic of China is certainly at the top of that list. Right now, we are in competition with a communist government that doesn't play by the rules. The Chinese Government employs economic espionage, and it exploits the United States' open research and innovation to build up its own capabilities. U.S. companies are sending capital, intellectual property, and innovation to the People's Republic of China, fueling its advance in dual-use critical technological areas. A recent report by the National Security Advisor in the last administration, GEN H.R. McMaster, states as follows: Outbound investment harms U.S. strategic interests when it facilitates inappropriate technology transfer, allows for underinvestment in domestic capabilities, or undermines the long-term competitiveness of American firms. Testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee--the committee on which both Senator Cornyn and I sit--noted that in 2020, U.S. companies' capital investment in China totaled over $200 billion just in artificial intelligence, so-called AI--$200 billion just in AI--over $21 billion in semiconductors, and over $50 billion in biotechnology. These numbers don't even account for the transfer of operational know- how and intellectual property. You can't even quantify those values. We need a targeted response to these risks to our national security. Again, this amendment would require U.S. companies planning to invest in national security technology sectors in countries of concern to notify only--to notify the Department of the Treasury before those deals are completed. We need this type of outbound investment notification to understand just how much critical technology we are transferring to our adversaries via these capital flows. With this information in hand, we can begin to take control of our own economic future. By utilizing this information, we can make determinations as to how to protect U.S. talent, U.S. technology, and U.S. supply chains. This issue--and this is true of a lot of the Defense bill--this issue transcends party lines and gets to the heart of one of the most significant national security threats that we must confront. I want to thank Senator Cornyn for his strong bipartisan work on this issue over the last 3 years. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of amendment No. 931. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I want to start by thanking Chairman Wyden for his leadership on a range of issues that are important to vulnerable Americans, Medicaid being in the lead of that. Over and over again, Chairman Wyden has led us to ensure that we don't provide the kind of cuts that have been proposed in this debate about the next steps on ensuring that America doesn't default. And there is no question that not just people on both sides of the aisle but the American people want us to ensure that we do not default. The consequences of default--I won't itemize them. I think Americans are well familiar with them, but the consequences of default in a word would be ``catastrophic'' for every family, for every community in the country, and the consequences are too numerous to cite for tonight's purposes. But here is the problem: Even as most Americans want to take default off the table--most Members of Congress do--there are still some Members of the House, House Republicans, who want to keep default on the table or, in order to agree with the consensus, their pathway to avoiding default is to cut and cut and cut and decimate programs that are important to vulnerable Americans. They would cut tens of billions, for example, from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and the TANF Program, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program, and the Children's Health Insurance Program. There are tens of billions just in those programs alone. And then, as Chairman Wyden made reference to, Medicaid. The proposed cuts by House Republicans would devastate so many Americans who rely upon Medicaid: children, seniors, people with disabilities. It would also, at the same time, not just be cuts of millions or tens of millions, it would be a $100 billion cut to Medicaid over 10 years. That is the proposal. That is what we are supposed to accept as the only pathway, the only pathway to avoiding default. Everyone knows that is a lie. Everyone knows that that is throwing sand in the eyes of the people so that they can't see the truth right in front of them. We must reject any bill that will increase poverty and take away healthcare from Americans. What is Medicaid? I think we found out a lot more about what that program means to so many Americans over the last 10 years, when there were proposals over and over again to cut by 10 billion a year or 20 billion or 50 billion a year, proposed by House Republicans over and over again. Medicaid tells us who we are as a people, as a country. It also tells us whom--whom--we value. We value our children, whether they live in rural areas or small towns or in cities or suburban communities. We value those children. And that is what Medicaid is all about, making sure those children have healthcare. We value people with disabilities. We say to ourselves as a people, we have to help folks who have a disability so they can lead a full life. Medicaid does that by providing healthcare to people with disabilities, especially children with disabilities. We found that out in a very real way when we were debating the proposal right here on the Senate floor in the summer of 2017. When some said we should get rid of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the consequence of that, of course, was to devastate children on Medicaid who have disabilities. Thirdly, of course, Medicaid tells us who we are because it protects seniors; it provides healthcare for seniors; it allows seniors to have long-term care. Now the same crowd, Members of Congress, who were proposing cutting Medicaid by $100 billion over the 10 years, that is the same crowd who voted on a tax bill in 2017. Right around Christmastime, in December of 2017, they voted and passed a tax bill that gave away the store to very wealthy Americans and big corporations. Now, they didn't have any compunction then about revenue. They said: We have got plenty of revenue so we are going to cut taxes for wealthy people and big corporations. Now they come to us and say: Oh, we need to make cuts. We need to make cuts, and the cuts go to programs that help the most vulnerable. Here is what Medicaid does for three groups of Americans: It makes it possible for one-third of all women in the United States of America to receive consistent, comprehensive prenatal care to increase the likelihood of having a healthy baby born at full term. The House Republican bill puts one-third of pregnant women at risk of losing--losing--prenatal care. Here is what it means for Pennsylvanian families, women, and their children: About 43,700 births in the State of Pennsylvania each year are paid for by Medicaid, covered by the Medicaid Program. So that is one-third of Pennsylvanians or Americans who happen to be women who are pregnant. Second, Medicaid provides healthcare and services for about half-- about 45 percent--of all the adults in the country with disabilities. That is 10 million people in America who are benefited directly by the Medicaid Program. The House Republican bill would expand the waiting list for home- and community-based services for seniors and people with disabilities. That is what they would do, make that waiting list, which is intolerably too long right now, make that longer. Third, Medicaid pays for two-thirds of all long-term care for older adults who need nursing home or home care services. Again, the Republican House bill would cut funds for two-thirds of older adults who live in nursing homes or in their own homes with support. What does that mean for Pennsylvanians? About 63 percent of nursing home residents use Medicaid as their primary payor. They couldn't get into a nursing home. They would not have long-term care absent the Medicaid Program, but House Republicans want to cut that program. In our State, nearly 3.7 million people rely upon either the Medicaid Program or the Children's Health Insurance Program, 3.7 million Pennsylvanians, and yet even some Members of the Pennsylvania delegation in the House want to cut the Medicaid Program. The Republican bill passed by the House would put a million Pennsylvanians at risk of losing Medicaid immediately--1 million Pennsylvanians. So let's take default off the table. Yes, take it off the table. But let's also take off the table cuts to Medicaid, cuts to the SNAP program, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program, as well as the Children's Health Insurance Program. These programs, and especially for purposes of tonight's focus on Medicaid, tell us who we are as a country and whom we value. I think we can do better than what has been proposed on the House side. We can avoid default and make sure we are meeting our obligations, not just to the Nation, in terms of our economy, but meeting our obligations to our families, the most vulnerable families in our Commonwealth and in our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I will continue the reading of Martin Luther King's letter from the Birmingham jail. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: ``How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?'' The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: Just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ``an unjust law is no law at all.'' Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an ``I it'' relationship for an ``I thou'' relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence, segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong. Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured? Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest. I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience. We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was ``legal'' and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was ``illegal.'' It was ``illegal'' to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today, I rise to honor the lifetime accomplishments of Thomas B. Hagen, a remarkable leader, a pillar of his hometown of Erie, PA, and a man whose commitment to public service is unparalleled. Tom Hagen is a Navy man, an officer with more than 30 years of service to his country, and while he retired long ago, he has continued to live up to the Navy's belief of ``Not self, but Country.'' You can see Tom's Navy background in one of his other passions, historical preservation. His support enabled the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American History to exhibit the USS Gunboat Philadelphia and his efforts enabled the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to reconstruct Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry's War of 1812 vessel, the Flagship Niagara. Thanks to his efforts on behalf of these and many other projects, Tom has helped to ensure that many historical sites across our country will be available for future generations to enjoy. Tom is also deeply committed to the economic vitality of his hometown of Erie and has spearheaded efforts to ensure that Erie is a thriving community that serves all of its residents equitably. His support for economic development through the Erie Innovation District has instilled hope in many for the growth and success of northwestern Pennsylvania. His support for the ``Empower Erie'' initiative led to the creation of the Erie County Community College that provides a pathway for Erie County residents to more accessible education and greater employment opportunities. Tom has also played a key role in the purchase and rehabilitation of countless buildings in Erie, not only revitalizing the economy, but also creating employment. Tom is equally committed to providing opportunities for those struggling to better their lives. In 2015, he established the Susan Hirt Hagen fund to identify promising ideas to address persistent poverty, improve educational achievement, and halt economic decline. He has sought to help the vulnerable in times of crisis through his support for nonprofits like SafeNet, helping them take in more victims of abuse. Erie has had few better friends than Tom Hagen. He is not just a friend to the city; he is the quintessential servant leader who steps in to fill a need wherever one may be, doing so with humility and always seeking to elevate others before himself. The care, commitment, and support he has shown to this city and this region are remarkable. From his service as a captain in the U.S. Navy, his tenure as Pennsylvania's last secretary of commerce and first secretary of community and economic development, to his chairmanship of the board of Erie Insurance Group companies, Tom has a long and distinguished career serving his country, his State, and his community. It is an honor to call him a friend and to recognize him for his outstanding service to his community and to the country.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the Affordable Care Act, passed some 13 years ago, and in particular to talk about the Medicaid part of that, taking the Medicaid Program and allowing States to sign up for an expansion of Medicaid. But I thought the best place to start, as any healthcare discussion should start, is to talk about just one family. This happens to be a Pennsylvania family. I will start with two sisters. I will start with the older sister. Her name is Haley. Haley wrote me a letter just about 2\1/2\ years ago now, talking about her little sister. Here is what Haley wrote to me. She talked about where her family lives in Pennsylvania, and then she said--her sister's name is Sienna--she said: My sister is my best friend. She has Down syndrome so sometimes things are harder for her. It took her a long time to walk and she is still learning to talk. Her therapists help her and sometimes I help her too. Then she goes on to talk about how she, Haley, introduces her sister Sienna to her classmates. She said that she shares her sister with her friends, and I am quoting directly what Haley says: Mommy and me read a story at my school to explain Sienna's muscles work different than ours. Our muscles are like rubber bands but hers are more like play-doh. Now my friends understand why things are harder for her and they all love her. They think she is the cutest and so do I. So said an older sister about her younger sister. Of course, her mom wrote a much longer letter to me about what that family is facing every day. I won't go through all of it tonight, but when this family received that diagnosis of Down syndrome, Sienna's mom said: Sienna's diagnosis came as a surprise to us. After enduring four miscarriages, she was our miracle baby. Our miracle baby surprised us on the day of her birth with her diagnosis and a heart condition. We were completely unprepared to raise a child with a disability. After I delivered her, a kind nurse explained to me how lucky we were to have Sienna here in Pennsylvania after the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Then her mom goes on to describe all the benefits that she received because of the Affordable Care Act and because of her residence in Pennsylvania. That is what we are talking about here when we talk about healthcare. This isn't a budget question only. This isn't just a policy discussion. This is about real people's lives. And the further away you get from real people's lives, the easier it is to make the calculation, as some have made around here, some Members of Congress whose healthcare is made available to them because of the Federal Government--that is why they have healthcare, because of the Federal Government. Whether they are in the exchange or they have it some other way, most Members of the U.S. Senate and the House have that healthcare because of the Federal Government. So those with healthcare provided by the Federal Government seek relentlessly--too many seek relentlessly to use Federal power to cut people off of healthcare. This is about real people's lives, not something abstract, not some remote discussion about policy and about budgets and deficits and appropriations. This is about real people's lives, like Haley's little sister. I know there has been a lot of discussion of late about Social Security and Medicare and how we hope they are off the table, and that is good, those two earned benefit programs being off the table. But there is a third program that is not an earned benefit, but I would argue that Medicaid is--Medicaid tells us who we are as a nation. It is as if we look into a mirror when we consider the Medicaid Program, and it tells us what kind of a nation we are or what kind of a nation we will be if we slash it the way that so many people around here have proposed in budget after budget, year after year, talking about slashing Medicaid arbitrarily and outrageously and obnoxiously. We are going to stop them from doing it once again, but I think it is important to remind people what we are talking about here. Medicaid is a program basically about three Americans: children from low-income families--and not just in urban communities, but there are certainly a high number of children in our cities who benefit from Medicaid. Thank God we have the Medicaid Program all these decades later. The utilization rate is actually higher among rural children or children who live in rural communities. They have a higher utilization of Medicaid in the Children's Health Insurance Program than urban kids by percentage. That is a fact, and we need to remind people of that. Medicaid is a program that also helps people with disabilities. You can't march around here every day or year after year and say that you really care about people with disabilities, that you fight for people with disabilities, and then go and cut the Medicaid Program like some have proposed. And the proposals to cut it haven't just been in the tens of billions of dollars. That is just the annual cut they want to propose. It has often been hundreds of billions of dollars over the 10 years within which we talk about budgets around here and appropriations--hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts. That is what some want to do. We have to remind ourselves again that this is a program about children and about people with disabilities. The third group of Americans, of course, is older Americans, our seniors. A lot of middle- class families may not know it, but their mom or their dad or a loved one is in a nursing home solely because of Medicaid. You can't get into the nursing home, unless you can pay out of your own pocket, without the Medicaid Program. We could actually call the Medicaid Program the senior long-term care program or we could call it the program that provides healthcare to kids or we could call it the program that helps children with disabilities. Now we are told that the House Republican Study Committee fiscal year 2023 budget plans to cut Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and the Affordable Care Act--all three. They want to cut the Affordable Care Act marketplace subsidy spending by nearly half over the next decade. Again, when it comes to Medicaid, we are talking about a program that provides the funding for almost half of the births in America. So everyone who claims to care about children and babies and still wants to cut Medicaid has some explaining to do when you want to substantially cut a program that provides the funding for half of the births in the United States of America. It also provides almost half of the funding and support for long-term care services--services and supports, I should say--for older adults and people with disabilities. That is what the program is. This Republican Study Committee goes on to say their budget plan converts Medicaid to a block grant program where Federal funding would be capped and States would receive a fixed amount regardless of their actual costs. Here is what that means in real life: A State gets a block of money, a block grant, and when the State's costs go up for children or people with disabilities or seniors, and they hit the cap of that, those Americans are on their own. They are on their own because the State is out of money. That is what that means in the real world. But it gets worse. This plan also, thirdly, wants to cut the Federal so-called FMAP, the Federal medical assistance percentage, the percentage that the Federal Government pays for Medicaid. They want to cut that all the way down to 50 percent instead of the numbers that it has been at for years--so much higher. That is also a bad idea. So when we get back to this on what it means for families, we also have to consider what not just Sienna's sister said in her letter to me, but what about Sienna's mom, whom I quoted just a little bit a moment ago? Here is what Sienna's mom said: As I entered this new world-- Because she just had a daughter diagnosed with Down syndrome. As I entered this new world of early intervention, therapies, and medical needs, I began to realize just how much of a financial toll this would take on us if it weren't for the protections of the [Affordable Care Act] and Medicaid. She goes on to describe that. She says: Sienna receives 7 weekly therapies. The costs of those alone are $3,400 per week. That is $3,400 per week for those seven therapies. Without the ACA, her therapies and medical care would have quickly exceeded the lifetime cap-- Which was addressed in the ACA-- and Sienna would be uninsurable for the rest of her life and left without access to life saving care. Uninsurable. I can't tell you the number of times that has been in letters that I receive from parents worried about their child who has a disability in the United States of America, the most powerful country in the history of the world. These families are worried about their child with a disability not having access to services, not having access to those therapies, not having access to what they need to live their lives, and becoming ``uninsurable.'' That is an abomination. We are not the greatest country in the world if we do that. We are nowhere near the greatest country in the world if we do that. That would be a stain on America. Every one of us should be ashamed of that if that were to transpire. If that America transpired, it would diminish all of us. It doesn't matter what else we do around here if that happens. That is not the America that I think most people believe we are and should be, but some want to go there. I know they have all this talk about, oh, well, the cost of Medicaid is getting so great, and it is ``unsustainable.'' That is Washington gobbledygook for people who do not have the guts, the political guts, to say: You know what, when you passed a tax bill in 2017 that gave away the store and so much else to big corporations for permanent corporate tax relief--and those same people who voted for that bill that gave permanent corporate tax relief to the biggest companies in the world, the biggest companies in the history of the world, are the same people who are saying: But we have to cut back on Medicaid because it is unsustainable. That is just throwing sand in the eyes of the people--that is what it is--blinding them with falsehoods. That is what that is. So we have work to do to prevent this from happening. Now, Mr. President, I am getting close to my time--and I am over already--but I wanted to make maybe two final points. We have had a concern, many of us, over the last number of years about access to Medicaid not being as stable as it should be; and that stability was enhanced by a provision called continuous coverage--that is the term of art, ``continuous coverage''--provisions that were enacted to ensure healthcare coverage during the COVID-19 pandemic. Across the country, Medicaid enrollment has increased since the beginning of the pandemic. For example, Pennsylvania's number went up to about 3.6 million people currently enrolled in Medicaid to keep their healthcare coverage uninterrupted. Over the last 3 years, States were prevented from disenrolling people with Medicaid. If not for the legislation passed in February of 2020, at the very beginning of the pandemic just before the CARES Act, people would have had to reapply for Medicaid on an annual basis. Studies have shown that this annual enrollment process can lead to unnecessary coverage losses due to administrative and procedural issues. This can be yet another barrier to ensuring that people with Medicaid continue to receive the coverage that they need. Now, here is the problem. Here is the challenge ahead of us. The appropriations bill passed in December set an end for the Medicaid ``continuous coverage requirement'' because we are not in the pandemic anymore, and that was enacted during the pandemic; and that appropriations bill provided guidance to mitigate coverage losses as this requirement ends. So this kind of unwinding of some parts of Medicaid is set to begin April 1. States can start to disenroll people from Medicaid at the start of next month. So here comes our responsibility. Both parties in the Senate, both parties in the House--I should say, all three parties, Democrat, Republican, Independent--we have an obligation, a legal duty, a moral obligation that is inescapable to make sure that people know what they need to do to maintain that coverage. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are working with States to provide information, to promote continuous coverage, and, thirdly, to avoid inappropriate terminations as they begin to unwind this continuous coverage requirement. In Pennsylvania, the State I represent, the State is working diligently to clarify coverage in formats and languages accessible to enrollees to ensure that everyone understands their eligibility and can access the coverage that they are entitled to. My constituents are fortunate because Pennsylvania expanded Medicaid years ago, yet there are still States that have chosen not to expand Medicaid. We know that the expansion of Medicaid became easier with the passage of the American Rescue Plan. So we have to continue to encourage States to expand to make sure that more and more people get coverage. Let me end with this, Mr. President. As I outlined before, this is not just something nice to have. This is about life and death. It is about quality of life for families and for children, especially; but it is also about the risk of death if you don't have coverage. That is as true as any statement we could make, that this is about life and death. Here is what Sienna's mom--you heard from her sister, but here is what Sienna's mom said. And I will end with this. Towards the end of her letter, she said: I am proud to be Sienna's mom. This journey is full of wonder, joy, and unimaginable love. It changes life's most ordinary moments into the extraordinary. But with constant attacks on our healthcare, it's also agonizing work, hard decisions, and constant advocacy. It gets exhausting fighting for your child, having to prove their value to the world. This is a mother talking about her child and having to live almost a separate life as an advocate because people in this town, year after year, are proposing cuts that would badly damage the life of her daughter Sienna. She goes on to say: Once again, we as parents are forced to suit up for battle and prove that our children are worthy of healthcare. In America? Is that what we are asking parents to do? Parents who have had a reliance upon this program for years and, in some cases, decades and decades, we are asking them to suit up--again, as she said, ``to suit up for battle,'' to make the case to Washington as to why they shouldn't cut the Medicaid Program in America? That is an insult to all of us. She shouldn't have to suit up for legislative or policy battles. She should have the opportunity to not worry about that and just to live her life and take care of her children and to live a life that she has been able to live with the help that we provided through Medicaid and other supports. So we have some work to do here, to stop--not to talk about and hold hands and compromise--to stop them from cutting what they want to cut in Medicaid at all costs. So that is what I am going to be doing. We are going to stop this from happening. We can compromise on a lot of things around here, but not on that-- not on cuts of hundreds of billions of dollars over 10 years to Medicaid. Not in this America. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in honoring the life of Judy Heumann, one of the most important disability and civil rights leaders of our time. While Judy spent most of her childhood and early adult life in New York, she is a native Pennsylvanian, born in Philadelphia in 1947. She was an advocate for disability equality and access to education from an early age. When her mother attempted to enroll her in public kindergarten, the school principal denied her admission because Judy's wheelchair was determined to be ``a fire hazard.'' That determination wasn't by any official means; it was only in the opinion of a principal who had the power to bar her from receiving an education. It took over 4 years for Judy's parents to find a school where she could enroll, starting regular attendance at school at the age of 9. At the start of her adult life, Judy experienced similar discrimination when the New York City schools denied her a job as a teacher, despite having passed all requirements but one, the physical examination. Judy sued the New York City Public Schools and won her case and was hired as the first teacher with a disability in the New York City schools. That was 1970. One year later, partly inspired by the successful advocacy of Judy, Pennsylvania parents of children with intellectual disabilities filed suit to secure enrollment of their children in Pennsylvania public schools. That successful case, known as PARC v. Pennsylvania, was the foundation for the 1975 Education of All Handicapped Children Act, now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA. After many years of advocacy, that included the development and passage of IDEA and the Americans with Disabilities Act, Judy was appointed by President Clinton to be the Assistant Secretary of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services in the Department of Education, a position she held from 1993 to 2001. With that appointment, Judy had come full circle, from being barred from attending public school as a kindergartener, to being responsible for ensuring public schools across the country were accessible to and educating all children with disabilities. Successfully advocating for such groundbreaking change in education of children with disabilities would have been enough for one life, but Judy did much more than advocate to secure access to education for children with disabilities. Her work included implementation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which requires all governments and public entities that receive Federal funding to ensure their services and settings are accessible to people with disabilities. She was a key partner with Democrats and Republicans in the writing and implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990 and the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments in 2008. Judy's work was not limited to the United States. In 1983, Judy, along with Ed Roberts, one of the fathers of the disability rights movement, established the World Institute on Disability. She felt that the disability rights achieved in America needed to be spread throughout the world. Judy became the first Advisor on Disability and Development at the World Bank in 2002. And in 2010, President Obama appointed her to the position of Special Advisor on International Disability Rights at the State Department, a role she filled until 2017. Along the way, Judy rarely forgot that she was working for individual people with disabilities. When visiting countries, she made it a point to seek out young people with disabilities and encourage them to speak out and to become leaders in their own towns, districts, States, and countries. She knew the power of policy to change lives and the importance of individuals to implement that change. Judy Heumann changed the world in big and small ways for people with disabilities and all of us.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, on February 14, I successfully underwent surgery for prostate cancer. I am grateful to the doctors and other medical professionals who provided me with excellent care, and I am glad to be back in the Senate working for the people of Pennsylvania. As the result of my medical treatment, I required several weeks of recovery and thus missed several votes in the Senate. The outcome of these votes was unaffected by my absence, but I wish for the record to show, had I not been absent due to my cancer treatment and recovery, how I would have voted on the following votes: yea on vote number 11, on the confirmation of Gina R. Mendez-Miro to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico; yea on vote number 12, on the motion to invoke cloture on Lindsay C. Jenkins to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois; yea on vote number 13, on the confirmation of Lindsay C. Jenkins to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois; yea on vote number 14, on the motion to invoke cloture on Matthew L. Garcia to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Mexico; yea on vote number 15, on the confirmation of Matthew L. Garcia to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Mexico; yea on vote number 16, on the motion to invoke cloture on Adrienne C. Nelson to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Oregon; yea on vote number 17, on confirmation of Adrienne C. Nelson to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Oregon; yea on vote 18, on the motion to invoke cloture on Ana C. Reyes to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia; yea on vote 19, on the motion to invoke cloture on Daniel J. Calabretta to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of California; yea on vote 20, on confirmation of Ana C. Reyes to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia; yea on vote 21, on the motion to invoke cloture on Lester Martinez Lopez to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense; yea on vote 22, on confirmation of Daniel J. Calabretta to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of California; yea on vote 23, on the confirmation of Lester Martinez- Lopez to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense; yea on vote number 24, on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Maria Araujo Kahn to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit. Due to my medical treatment on February 14, I also missed committee hearings and other Senate business when the Senate was in session from February 14 to February 17.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, every year, it is my privilege, during Black History Month, to honor Black Pennsylvanians who have made particularly notable contributions to their communities and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I rise today to pay tribute to this year's honorees and to commend their deep commitment to service. This year's theme is ``Inspiring a Bold and Bright Future.'' Several individuals we honor have been laboring in their communities for generations, while we are also honoring a younger generation of Pennsylvanians who have already brought about positive change in their communities. We have chosen to honor both those in the dawn of their service and those who are well established in that service to highlight the generational and sustained nature of this work and to emphasize the enduring relationships between our older heroes and those who come behind them to take up the mantel of justice work and community empowerment. Hettie Simmons Love--south central Pennsylvania In 1947, a young African-American woman, Hettie Simmons, graduated from the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania with her MBA in accounting, becoming the first African-American to do so. While Hettie never had the opportunity to pursue a career in the same manner afforded to other graduates of Wharton, she continued to forge a path where she could apply her talents for the benefit of others. While she has recently been discovered late in life as a ``hidden figure,'' to many in central Pennsylvania, she is an accomplished community leader clearing a path for those who came after her. Hettie Simmons was born in Jacksonville, FL, and attended Fisk University, a historically Black college or university--HBCU--in Tennessee where she majored in math. After graduating from Fisk in 1943, her desire for better opportunities for her future led her to apply for admission to Penn's Wharton School. Unable to pursue a career with her Wharton degree, Hettie Simmons Love, newly married and living in Philadelphia, applied her academic skills in community settings, serving as treasurer in several organizations and, after the family moved to Harrisburg in 1971, serving as the church treasurer at St. Paul's Episcopal Church for over 20 years. Hettie also lent her business acumen to three different Black-owned businesses in the Harrisburg area, serving as a bookkeeper and offering suggestions for operational improvements. In her early eighties, Hettie Simmons Love was still volunteering to help seniors with their income tax forms. Hettie is also a long-time member of her sorority, volunteering for decades and becoming a diamond member of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc., in 2016 for having been a member for 75 years. In December 2016, Hettie was awarded a Trailblazer award from the National African-American MBA Association for being the first African- American graduate student to earn her MBA degree from the Wharton School. The current Dean of the Wharton School, Dean Ericka James, the first African-American dean of the school, had the honor of meeting Hettie and presenting her with a certificate acknowledging the historic significance of Hettie's achievement. Now 100 years young, Hettie Simmons Love continues to thrive, serving in her church and community whenever opportunities arise. With each passing birthday, she thinks that if God is keeping her here, then she must have more to do. Hettie continues to donate her time, talent, and treasures to others, earning the respect of her community and inspiring generations of leaders to come. Gary Horton--northwest Pennsylvania While Ms. Hettie Simmons Love was building community in Philadelphia and Harrisburg, Gary Horton was learning the same lessons of community service from his parents in northwestern Pennsylvania and making those lessons his own. Born into a large family in Erie, Gary learned from his parents and grandparents the importance of public service early in his life. One of his first acts of civic engagement at the young age of 8 was to canvass for U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy's 1960 campaign for President. Gary recalled that he and others, ``were able to picket places as a young person for job opportunities, for voting rights, for justice and we were able to register people to vote.'' The transformative power of education was evident early in Gary's life and would become a theme of his own service over time as well. Gary was educated in Erie Public Schools and graduated from Strong Vincent High School. Gary went on to pursue higher education at Hampton Institute and then Cheney University, earning a bachelor's degree in political science. He applied the political education he learned as a young activist and then as a student by going to work in State government for several years and then returning home to work in the administration of Erie Mayor Joyce Savocchio, Erie's first woman mayor. Wanting to continue his work to improve his hometown of Erie, Gary then founded the Urban Erie Economic Development Corporation--UECDC--and became its chief executive officer when it merged with the Reverend Ernest Franklin Smith Quality of Life Learning Center in 2002. At UECDC, Gary leads an organization that carries on the educational mission that informed his life from an early age, offering job training programs, a summer youth work program, and self-help initiatives for young people and, more recently, a growing number of new Americans from South Sudan, Eritrea, Liberia, Ukraine, Iraq, the DRC, and other countries. With Gary's help and that of the UECDC, these new arrivals have found the promise of a new life. Gary Horton has also served his city through voluntarism, serving two terms as an elected member of the board of directors of the school district of the City of Erie from 2004 to 2011, serving as the president of the Erie chapter of the NAACP, and leading Erie's ``Walking in Black History,'' a program that takes Erie school children to historic sites of the civil rights movement throughout the South. The city of Erie is blessed to have Gary and those like him who have dedicated their lives to the city and its residents. Gary has truly been an inspiration in Erie and with Gary and others leading the charge, offers a bright future to its residents. I have thus far talked about two leaders who have devoted their entire lives to community building, Ms. Hettie Simmons Love, who is still doing so at the age of 100, and Gary Horton, who though he cannot match Ms. Simmons Love in total years, has brought his own unmatched service to Erie. But today I also want to honor the next generation of leaders, those who have been inspired by the efforts of people like Ms. Hettie Simmons Love and Gary Horton and upon whose shoulders they stand. Shawn Aleong--southeast Pennsylvania Shawn Aleong is a disability, civil, and human rights activist from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Although Shawn lives with cerebral palsy, he has always said, ``For me, my disability is not a curse. It's not a handicap. It is a gift so that I can help implement change.'' His passion and dedication were recognized this past year on a national level. On March 11, 2022, President Biden appointed Shawn to serve on the President's Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities, which advises the President on disability policy. Shawn will now be able to effect change nationally just as he does locally. Leading up to that well-deserved appointment, Shawn has been steadily building his platform through his education and community engagement efforts, particularly at Temple University. He is a pre-law student at Temple, and he serves as senior adviser for local and community affairs for Temple student government and is a director on the board of advisers for Temple's Institute on Disabilities. During an internship with the Temple University Police Department, Shawn developed an interest in the interactions between law enforcement and people with disabilities and started a process to train officers to better interact with people with disabilities. Shawn is also an intern at Disability Rights Pennsylvania, where he supports staff working on potential discrimination cases related to the disabilities of clients. He has been a member of the NAACP and the board of directors for the Arc of Philadelphia, an organization that advocates for the rights of people with disabilities. Shawn has been an outspoken advocate for disability policies affecting the well-being of all people with disabilities. He has advocated for passage of a bill providing an expansion of ABLE account eligibility to age 46. We achieved passage of this in Congress this past December with Shawn's assistance. He has also worked to preserve and expand access to Medicaid, home and community-based services, and accessible voting for people with disabilities. Shawn has also been an advocate for people with disabilities having the opportunity to live in their own homes, in neighborhoods of their own choosing. When describing what inclusion means, he has said it is ``living in the community and working in the community. We need affordable housing, good paying jobs, good support systems, and a good community. That's how I believe that we can all be as one.'' Shawn has been able to continue his advocacy in a much more creative way. He is an accomplished actor and long-time cast member of ``A Fierce Kind of Love,'' a theater piece highlighting the struggles of people with intellectual disabilities who were institutionalized in the early and mid-20th century and how leaving institutional living affected their lives. Deahmi Mobley and Jaia Harrison--southwest Pennsylvania This year, we also honor two high school freshmen from southwest Pennsylvania, Deahmi Mobley and Jaia Harrison. In 2022, Dehami and Jaia were named Do the Write Thing Ambassadors for their impressive essays on the impact of gun violence. Deahmi Mobley is a freshman at Central Catholic High School. In 2022, Dehami was named one of Pittsburgh's two Do the Write Thing Ambassadors after his essay on the impact of gun violence for young people won a top honor. In his essay, Deahmi describes how youth and gun violence has affected his life since he lost his brother, SeQuorri Smith. In his essay, Deahmi reflects on a number of things, the impact of his brother's death at a young age, the misplaced priorities of some young people, the bullying that others face, and the critical importance of violence prevention and the need for parents and educators to play a role in it. Deahmi talks about his belief that education and youth violence are closely linked and he echoes our other honorees in stressing the important role that education has on community change. He writes, ``We need to do better as a whole. Instead of putting others down, we should bring each other up. Instead of balling up a fist, hold someone's hand. Instead of picking up a gun, pick up some books. And watch how society, and us as a community, change.'' Jaia Harrison, a student at Northgate Senior High School is, like Deahmi, a freshman. In her essay, Jaia talks about her own experience with youth violence as a witness to a deadly shooting in 2021, and she summons the courage to talk about its impact upon her. She speaks poignantly about the shock that spread through her body as a result of witnessing youth violence firsthand. She also shares her views on youth violence more broadly, particularly the need to take youth mental health more seriously in order to prevent violence. She likens youth mental health to a home that may appear to be in good shape on the outside, but which internally has many problems that may be invisible. ``To address what may seem like the bigger problems,' Jaia says, ``you have to address the internal problems first.'' Jaia loves being a big sister. She has a sister, Jaylen, and a young brother named Junior, and she dreams of attending a historically Black college and university. It is difficult to share your loss and your struggles in public, and Deahmi and Jaia have shown remarkable courage for stepping forward and telling their stories. They have not only reminded us of the terrible toll that violence takes upon our communities, especially our young people, but they have also provided us specific areas of focus to prevent violence and promote better health in our communities. I am grateful for their wisdom and leadership, and I encourage them to continue speaking up. I have no doubt that they will continue to speak the truth and bring about change in the years to come. The community leaders working in our communities large and small across Pennsylvania improve our neighborhoods and strengthen our communities. Pennsylvanians like Hettie Simmons Love and Gary Horton, who apply their talents wherever they are called to do so, lead our communities through dark times and into a brighter future. Shawn Aleong's fight for disability rights and the right to self- determination inspires me and so many others to join him in the struggle for the civil rights of people with disabilities. It is young people like Deahmi Mobley and Jaia Harrison who muster the courage to challenge all of us, young and old alike, to declare that we must act boldly to end the epidemic of violence in our communities. I am inspired by the example and the commitment of the leaders who we are honoring this year, and I am sustained in my own work by the knowledge that they stand with me in the fight to bring equity and justice to communities across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging, having adopted rules governing its procedures for the 118th Congress, have a copy of their rules printed in the Record, pursuant to XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I wish to expand upon the remarks I delivered earlier today on the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which this body voted to include in the omnibus spending package. I first introduced this bill in 2012 with Senator Shaheen. Senator Cassidy joined us this Congress, and the bill now has broad, bipartisan support. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a very straightforward piece of legislation; it closes a loophole in the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act to allow pregnant workers to request reasonable accommodations so that they can continue working safely during pregnancy and upon returning to work after childbirth. This is a commonsense bill that has broad, bipartisan support--everyone from the ACLU to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to the Chamber of Commerce. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is very simple. Pregnant workers should be able to request reasonable accommodations--a stool, a water bottle, a bathroom break--when such an accommodation would help them remain at work safely during their pregnancy and so they can return to work after childbirth. Other accommodations that a pregnant worker might request include, but are not limited to, light duty, temporary transfer, additional or more flexible breaks, changing food or drink policies, time off to recover from childbirth, accommodations for lactation needs, and flexible scheduling. The bill is intended to help women like Peggy Young, a UPS driver who requested light duty while she was pregnant. Peggy was denied her request, even though other workers had received light duty, because there is no requirement under the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act to provide reasonable accommodations. She was forced onto unpaid leave and eventually took her case all the way to the Supreme Court. She won, but the ruling did not provide full protections to the millions of workers who get pregnant each year. That is why we need the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, so that every pregnant worker will be able to request an accommodation without fear of being fired or forced on leave, when all she needs is a stool or a bathroom break. Young did not solve this issue, and the standard is still unworkable for employers and pregnant workers. After Young, over two-thirds of women still lost their Pregnancy Discrimination Act pregnancy accommodation claims in court, mostly because they were unable to find a suitable comparator under the Young comparator framework. Pregnant workers need immediate relief to remain healthy and on the job. Pregnant workers should not have to muster evidence and identify someone else at work to get their own medically necessary accommodation, as basic as a stool or extra restroom breaks. Pregnant workers, especially in low-wage industries, usually do not have access to their coworkers' personnel files and do not know how all their coworkers are being treated. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would create a clear, explicit right to accommodations, allowing pregnant workers to remain healthy and attached to the workforce. It is a solution that provides clarity to both employers and employees. That is why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups support the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act sets up a simple framework that is easily understood and utilized by both employers and employees. Under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a pregnant employee may request reasonable accommodations from their employer, the same process that individuals with disabilities use under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Employers are familiar with it, the interactive process is easier for both the worker and the employer. Workers will be able to secure the accommodations they need in a timely manner, while employers will avoid costly litigation over allegations of discrimination. A significant advantage of using this same framework is that employers are already familiar with it--and have over 30 years' experience providing reasonable accommodations to people with disabilities already. Over the years, I and my colleagues--along with supporters of the legislation--have worked carefully to ensure that the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act will both protect pregnant workers from discrimination and provide actionable, realistic parameters and guidance for employers. That is why, as I mentioned previously, the bill has the support of over 200 advocacy groups from all parts of the ideological spectrum. Now, some have claimed that the Americans with Disabilities Act-- ADA--already gives pregnant workers who truly need accommodations a right to accommodations. That is simply not true. It is not what we are seeing on the ground or what courts are deciding in their rulings. First, the ADA does not protect pregnant workers who need accommodations to prevent complications from arising in the first place, such as extra restroom breaks to prevent a urinary tract infection or temporary light duty to prevent a miscarriage, which doctors sometimes advise. Second, many courts have held that the ADA does not protect even those pregnant workers with serious pregnancy complications like a high-risk pregnancy, bleeding, or severe nausea. That has remained the case even after Congress expanded the ADA in 2008. Clearly, the ADA, while a vitally important law, is not adequate to keep pregnant workers healthy and on the job. It is time to step up and protect pregnant workers who just need a little help--a water bottle, a stool, light duty--in order to keep working safely. This is the right thing to do. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a reasonable and responsible bill that will help workers continue working safely during pregnancy and after childbirth. With broad support and a framework that is already familiar to employers, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a commonsense, bipartisan bill that should be enacted without delay. In closing, I would like to reiterate my thanks to Senator Cassidy, who has been a true partner on this bill, along with our staffs; Senator Shaheen, for cosponsoring with me all these years; Senator Murray and Senator Burr for their work to shepherd the bill through the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; and the majority leader, Senator Schumer, for helping us to see this bill through the U.S. Senate.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I want to start by saying something very simple about what we are about to vote on. This bill is about two words: reasonable accommodations. It is as simple as that. More than 30 years ago, we passed the Americans with Disabilities Act, which said something very simple as well. It said that a worker with a disability in the workplace should have reasonable accommodations, not any accommodation--reasonable accommodations. Thirty years of case law, thirty years of testing that principle have shown us that pregnant workers should have the same protections, reasonable accommodations, so that if a woman is pregnant in the workforce, she can do her job and have a healthy and safe pregnancy. That is all this bill is about. The organizations supporting it are across the board. Every organization you can think of is supporting this bill. I urge a ``yes'' vote, similar to the House vote on this, which was 315 to 101, more than three quarters of the House. I turn now to my colleague Senator Cassidy.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, this bill is about protecting pregnant workers. We shouldn't be treating pregnant workers who happen to be State and local government employees differently than we treat private sector employees or differently than we treat Federal workers. What this bill does is give pregnant State and local workers the same protections. So if a woman is pregnant in the workforce and she needs accommodations that are reasonable, as the bill provides, we should provide them, whether she works in State or local government or whether she works in the Federal Government or private sector. The Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, on a bipartisan basis, considered this amendment and rejected it and voted the bill itself--the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act--out of committee 19 to 2. I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Vote on Amendment No. 6569

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, the end of every Congress brings with it the reality that fellow colleagues in the Senate will no longer serve with us when the new Congress convenes in January. As we rush to complete the work of this Congress and in our eagerness to return home to spend time with our families for the holidays, it is important that we pause to thank departing Members for their years of public service to their constituents and to the country. On December 15, I spoke on the floor to commend the Senate service of my fellow Pennsylvanian, Senator Pat Toomey. Senator Pat Leahy of Vermont has served nearly 48 years in the Senate, and his list of accomplishments is as long as his tenure. I first got to know Senator Leahy when I was a new Senator and a junior member of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Foresty, a committee that Senator Leahy once chaired. I was able to work with him and learn from him about all issues related to the dairy farming, which is of particular importance to both Vermont and my home State of Pennsylvania. Senator Leahy is also known, among other things, for his fierce commitment to human rights around the world, his long-time work advancing the cause of justice on the Judiciary Committee, his outstanding work on the Appropriations Committee, his fierce defense of the Senate as an institution, and, most of all, as the greatest advocate for the people of Vermont that the State has ever known. He has also found time for his personal passion of photography and to appear in five Batman movies. The Senate as an institution and I personally will miss serving with Pat. My wife Terese and I have been blessed by our friendship with Pat and his wife Marcelle. The end of this Congress also marks the end of Senator Richard Burr's time in the Senate. I have worked with Senator Burr on the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, on which we both sit. We have found common ground on a number of issues, most notably our shared interest in bio-defense and pandemic preparedness, upon which we have worked jointly for years. We led the effort in the Senate to pass the ABLE bill in 2014, which allows people with disabilities and their families to save for care and accommodations related to their disabilities. We also worked to advance out of committee a bipartisan pregnancy discrimination bill, which I still hope to get over the finish line this week. We have also disagreed at times, for example, when we both advocated for our respective States to receive critical title I education funding. I also served with Senator Burr on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence where, as the senior Republican on the committee, he helped to steer the committee through the treacherous waters of the Russia report detailing Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 election and to aid Donald Trump's candidacy. Even when the elements of his own party pressured him to do otherwise, Senator Burr stood up for American democracy and put country before party. Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri is also retiring. In agreement or disagreement, Senator Blunt has been an honest broker, one who worked to try and find common ground and who was honest when he could not. In the past year, he and I have worked successfully to sort through some challenging issues related to pregnancy discrimination and the Congressional Accountability Act. The details of the legislation here are not as pertinent here as the manner in which he engaged in the issue--respectfully, substantively, and productively. He and I have also worked together on adoption issues for many years and together lead a bill to make the Adoption Tax Credit refundable, which allows many more low-income families to benefit. He has been an excellent partner in that effort. I regret that we have not been able to enact that bill into law prior to his retirement, but I will continue to seek its passage in the coming Congress. Finally, Roy and I have worked for years to build and repair bridges in smaller, rural areas of our respective States by allocating additional funds to so-called off- system bridges. I did not have the privilege of working with Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama when he was a member of the Democratic Caucus in the 1980s, before my time in the Senate. Regardless, Senator Shelby and I have been neighbors on the third floor of the Russell Senate Office Building, which means that we often find ourselves walking to vote on the Senate floor at around the same time. Early in my career, I found myself delivering to Senator Shelby's office a box of ice cream from the legendary Creamery at Penn State, the result of lost bet between Penn State and the top-ranked Alabama football team in 2010. Most recently, Senator Shelby was critical to bringing back the ability of Senators to advocate for community projects in their home State through the appropriations process. As the senior Republican on the Appropriations Committee, Senator Shelby has been unwavering in his belief that Senators understand the critical needs of their communities and should have the opportunity to advocate for them. Due to Senator Shelby's efforts to bring back congressionally directed spending and my advocacy for worthy projects throughout Pennsylvania, communities large and small are addressing critical local needs, from early childhood to infrastructure to healthcare, among others. Senator Rob Portman of Ohio is also retiring from the Senate this year. Ohio shares a border with Pennsylvania, and, not surprisingly, we share many of the same concerns. For example, we both believe in the critical importance of our manufacturing base to the American economy and the need to support the workers upon whom our manufacturing might is built. We have both been critical of China and its efforts to undermine the American manufacturers and workers, especially in the case of steel production. Senator Portman and I have partnered to protect some of the last American manufacturers of electrical steel from deliberate Chinese market distortion. I have also worked with Senator Portman and his fellow Ohioan Senator Sherrod Brown on several iterations of legislation called Leveling the Playing Field to help manufacturers respond to unfair market competition from China and Chinese enterprises operating under the protection of the Chinese Government. I also want to note that Senator Portman and I have a shared interest in children's mental health and teamed up recently on S. 4757, the Investing in Kids' Mental Health Now Act, a bill to increase the availability of mental health resources for children. Finally, I wish to note the departure of Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma from the Senate. A member of the Senate since 1994, Senator Inhofe is known first and foremost as a champion of our military and the men and women who serve our nation. He has served on the Senate Armed Services Committee capably for decades, most recently as the senior Republican on the panel. This year, we honored Senator Inhofe by naming the annual defense authorization bill after him. I am especially grateful to Senator Inhofe and the Armed Services Committee for including the Global Food Security Act in the FY23 Defense authorization bill, which will strengthen our country's effort to promote food security around the world and also fight extremism and political unrest around the world. This good national security bill is one of many ways in which Senator Inhofe's leadership on issues related to the continent of Africa will continue far after his retirement, as 16 of the 20 countries targeted by the Global Food Security Act's development program are in Africa. Senator Inhofe and I also share a deep concern for the brave Afghans seeking freedom from the Taliban and recently joined together to write to the Biden administration urging it to do all that it could to assist with the evacuation of the students and guardians of the Marefat School, the first coeducational school in Afghanistan and a leading beacon of efforts to promote the education and equity of girls in Afghanistan. Our efforts helped the successful evacuation of hundreds of children and their families who were at risk under the Taliban's brutal regime. As each of these retiring members leave the Senate for the last time and go home to their families for the holidays, I want to wish them my heartfelt thanks for their years of service to the Senate and to the country.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise to offer some remarks about my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Toomey. I think you can tell from his presentation today what he holds most dear, and, of course, that is his family--both Kris, his wife, and his children--and I am so happy that he is going to be able to spend more time with them. I thought I would offer some remarks about his service as well as the ways that we have worked together. Let me start with the basic assertion which Senator Toomey made reference to that he and I didn't agree on much. And I think it is probably--I am not going to speak for him, but I kind of am in this moment. I am not sure he wanted to be caught dead agreeing with me on some issues, and that is just the way it works around here. But one thing we tried to do from the opening day that he got here in January of 2011--I had been here a few years at that point--was we tried to--and I think we were successful over 12 years--have a kind of mutual respect, which is easy to articulate and harder to effectuate, and it requires both sides to give and take. And I am grateful that we were able to do that together. There are a lot of ways in the Senate, as is true in the House or any other legislative body, even when you are from the same State, to kind of poke each other on a regular basis. We refrained from that. It didn't mean we were praising each other's legislative result or point of view, but we tried to demonstrate that basic mutual respect and not to try to undermine each other. As Senator Toomey outlined, I think the manifestation of the work we did together--or maybe the most evident manifestation of that--was the work we did on Federal district court judges. As everyone knows who follows the work of the Senate, Senators make recommendations to an administration about who should serve on the district courts in their State. In our State, we have an Eastern District, a Middle District, and a Western District. Depending on which month or year you are in, you have vacancies in each of those Federal districts throughout the State. And if you want a judge or a candidate to be a judge to advance, you have to work with your colleague. Now, it is a little easier when you have two Democrats and two Republicans. It is more challenging when you have a split delegation in the Senate. But we worked together. And as Senator Toomey made reference to, we vetted and then advanced for nomination and then saw through the confirmation of 33 Federal and district court judges in 12 years. He mentioned that it was the third highest other than California and Texas. But what is noteworthy about that--really significant, I believe--is that it was from a split-delegation State. The two States I just mentioned didn't have that split. So it is a singular achievement that we should both be proud of. But, as he also indicated, our staffs deserve the lion's share of the credit. They had to do so much work in making sure that those nominees were vetted and could be advanced. So I am grateful for that work that he did with me and with our office for the State of Pennsylvania. And, Pat, I can't thank you enough for the work we did together on Federal district court judges. We also worked together most recently, the last couple of years, on some nursing home reforms--maybe, more particularly, the oversight that the Federal Government provides with respect to nursing homes when you have a program--they call it the Special Focus Facility Program--where the intent of that program is to focus on the poor-performing nursing homes. But we did an investigation where we saw that there are some nursing homes that were not quite on the list that they should have been on and weren't getting that kind of special focus of attention. I also worked with Senator Toomey on that nursing home legislation. So on a range of issues important to Pennsylvania and important in the Nation, we tried every day to, when we were at our best, work well together. I especially appreciate what he had to do not just as a Member of the Senate but, in this case, in the early days of 2021 as a Republican Senator when he had two big decisions to make. He had a decision to make on January 6 about how he would vote on the certification question; and he, in my judgment, voted the right way and, I think, voted in a way that was courageous. And then just a few weeks went by and there was the impeachment proceedings here in the Senate for the then-former President, and that was maybe an even more difficult vote, to cast the vote that he cast in that impeachment proceeding. Both votes were exceedingly difficult for any political figure, for any member of a political party at any time in history. And it was a very difficult time, I am sure, for him to cast those votes. But he did because he wanted to advance the interests of democracy and he wanted to advance the concept that we claim to hold dear, which is the rule of law and upholding the rule of law. And I can't imagine a more difficult set of votes so close in time for any Senator, and I am grateful that he voted the way that he did. And I know the people of Pennsylvania were grateful. So on so many fronts, I said--recently, we had a gathering of Pennsylvanians. On so many fronts, even when we didn't agree on big issues, we were able to come together on some Pennsylvania priorities as well as issues that related to the Federal judiciary. One thing that I think we are in agreement on and have always been in agreement on is both of us, in our personal capacities, married way above our class. I married above my class when I married Terese, and I think the same is true of Pat when he married Kris. We agree on that, right? We do. OK. I am happy for Pat Toomey and Kris and their children, but I will miss working with him and serving alongside him. As he said, it is a privilege to serve in this institution, and he served this institution and the people of our State with honor and with distinction. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise as so many of us are talking about today and reflecting upon the massacre in Newtown, CT, Sandy Hook Elementary School, 10 years ago today. I rise for two purposes: One is to commemorate those who lost their lives that day--especially the children, 20 children, as well as 6 adults--to remember each of them today but also to commend and salute the work done by families and so many others across this country to make some measure of progress, limited though it has been, to reduce the likelihood of more gun violence across the country. I wanted to start, though, Madam President, by reading the names and the ages of those who perished on that day at Sandy Hook Elementary School. For each individual, I will read their name and then the age they were on that day. First, Charlotte Bacon, 6 years old; Olivia Engel, 6; Dylan Hockley, 6 years old; Madeleine Hsu, 6; Catherine Hubbard, 6; Jesse Lewis, 6; Ana Marquez-Greene, 6; James Mattioli, 6; Emilie Parker, 6; Jack Pinto, 6 years old; Noah Pozner, 6; Caroline Previdi, 6; Jessica Rekos, 6; Avielle Richman, 6 years old; Benjamin Wheeler, 6; Allison Wyatt, 6; Daniel Barden, 7 years old; Josephine Gay, 7; Chase Kowalski, 7; Grace McDonnell, 7, just age 7. They are the children, and here are the adults who were killed on that day: Victoria Soto, 27 years old; Rachel D'Avino, 29; Lauren Rousseau, 30; Dawn Lafferty Hochsprung, 47 years old; Anne Marie Murphy, 52; and Mary Sherlach, 56 years old. When we remember those children and adults who were killed on that day, unfortunately for the Nation, it didn't stop there. And just as I have read those names, we could continue reading names from other cities and other years under different circumstances but all leading to the same place: death and darkness because of the scourge of gun violence all across America. The children of Newtown, CT, came before the most recent massacre of children in a school in Uvalde, TX. There were many front-page newspaper stories in 2012 on this day--or I guess tomorrow; it would be tomorrow's newspapers--across the country. We had little, small pictures of each child and each adult. I saved one from the Wall Street Journal. It was on my desk for a long time, and then I ultimately had it matted. But I still have one just from May of this year that is still in its newspaper form from Uvalde, TX--the same newspaper, the Wall Street Journal. But you could pick any paper in the country in 2012 or this past year. That tells us all we need to know. So, as we remember and reflect upon that loss, I believe today it is also important to remember and commend what the parents did, what the families did, what their friends and relatives and supporters did, what volunteers did, all these years, who didn't know these families. But let me start with the parents. These parents, of course, were consumed by grief, as anyone would be. But somehow--somehow--although they were consumed by their grief, somehow, by way of their own courage and the grace of God, they figured out a way to come together in common purpose, remembering and trying in their own way to pay tribute to their children, to form organizations which have been highly successful in making the case as to why we have to take action here on the Senate floor and not far away on the House floor, to take action on gun violence. For example, groups like Sandy Hook Promise and Newtown Action Alliance and so many others and related groups that have sprung up got involved in the debate and made the case to legislators personally. Parents burdened by their own grief made the case to legislators. The progress has been all too slow, but because of the courage of the parents of those Sandy Hook children and because of so many other families and parents who have loved and lost, we made some progress just this past year. But, unfortunately, in the last 10 years, it took thousands more mass shootings and hundreds of thousands of gun deaths for Congress to finally act. Let me say that again--hundreds of thousands of gun violence deaths for Congress to finally act. This past summer, we even had Republican Senators join us--not enough but enough to pass a bill in the Senate--to pass a bill that had commonsense gun safety measures in the bill. This bill that passed this summer not only will save lives, but there is some evidence it is already doing that, by some of the data and analysis done by law enforcement. But this bill, if anyone is being honest about it--this bill, this effort, this ongoing effort to reduce gun violence deaths, has to be just the very beginning of our work. People are still being killed and injured by gun violence every day in cities and communities all across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and across the Nation. We owe it to the families of those 20 children and those 6 adults who died in Newtown, CT, at Sandy Hook Elementary School, and so many other places that we can name and catalog here today. Because of the length of that list, we don't have time to go through all of them today. We have work to do to make sure that we not only pay tribute to those families who have loved and lost and done so much to help other families, but we owe so much to them in the form of passing legislation. We have to continue to make sure that those who lost their lives on that awful day--a day that most Americans will never forget--we have to make sure that all the efforts that their parents undertook and that their family members undertook will not be in vain. We have more work to do to pass commonsense gun safety measures. My God, a background check supported by 90 percent of the American people has not yet been passed into law, but it will be. We are going to get there here in the Senate and across the country. So we have more work to do, but on this day, as we commemorate and reflect on those young souls we lost, we also have to be positive about what their families have done since that day, showing uncommon courage and dedication to not just the memory of their children but to the betterment of the country as a whole. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I would ask consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Just by way of conclusion, I hope we can continue to work with our colleagues to get this bill passed. I want to say for the record, however, that under the act, under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, the EEOC, could not--could not--issue any regulation that requires abortion leave, nor does the act permit the EEOC to require employers to provide abortions in violation of State law. The EEOC understands that what is reasonable is specific to each workplace. For example, if the accommodation conflicts with a generally accepted work rule, like a seniority system, that is generally not reasonable. So for these and other reasons, we want to get this bill passed and not have to start all over again to delay the passage of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY. I yield to my colleague from Louisiana.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I just want to add parenthetically before I offer the unanimous consent request--Senator Murray made reference to the overwhelming support. This bill, when it comes to a final vote, will have at least 60 votes in the Senate, if not more. I think it will be more than that. But we should also note the passage in the House that Senator Murray made reference to, better than 3-to-1, 315 to 101, more than 75 percent of House Members support it--obviously bipartisan. Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Republican leader, that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 425, S. 4431; further, that there be up to 2 hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, and that the only amendments in order be No. 1, Lee, and No. 2, Braun; further, that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on the amendments in the order listed with a 60 affirmative vote threshold required for adoption; and that following the disposition of the amendments, the bill be read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if amended, with a 60 vote affirmative threshold required for passage without further intervening action or debate. Finally, that there be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to each vote.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which is a bill I first introduced in 2012 with Senator Shaheen of New Hampshire. Senator Cassidy from Louisiana has worked hard for years with me and with others to get this bill passed. I want to thank Senator Cassidy, as well as the chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Committee, Senator Murray; Ranking Member Burr of that same committee; and Majority Leader Schumer and others for all the work they have done to help us pass this bill. This is a commonsense bill that has broad bipartisan, bicameral support. Everyone from the ACLU to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports this legislation. These organizations didn't merely endorse the bill after reviewing it; they were actively involved in shaping the legislative text and finding agreement on the text that we are attempting to vote on, and they remain supportive today. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act simply closes a loophole in the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act to allow pregnant workers to request reasonable accommodations--``reasonable accommodations''; you are going to hear that phrase a lot today--so that that worker can continue working safely during their pregnancy and upon returning to work after childbirth. I am going to be coming back to that phrase in a moment, ``reasonable accommodations,'' but I want to cite just two examples among many. Just one from Pennsylvania--Janasia, a teaching assistant working at a childcare facility. She is from Bucks County, PA, in suburban Philadelphia. She suffered a miscarriage due to an infection during a previous pregnancy. When she got pregnant again, she asked for extra bathroom breaks, which were necessary to prevent contracting another infection. She was made to wait over an hour just to use the bathroom. Later that day, Janasia was fired. This is just one example of a pregnant worker asking for a simple-- simple--commonsense accommodation and being denied that accommodation. What are other types of reasonable accommodations that pregnant workers might request? Light duty is a common example. Pregnant people are routinely advised by their doctors to limit how much they lift, whether it is 20 pounds or 25 pounds or 30 pounds. Peggy Young was a UPS driver who requested light duty when she was pregnant. Other workers had received light duty, but she was denied because there was no requirement under the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act to provide reasonable accommodations. That is the loophole we are trying to fix. Peggy Young was forced onto unpaid leave and eventually took her case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Other common accommodations a pregnant worker might request are stools or water bottles. Cashiers and other retail workers are often denied these reasonable accommodations that can help them maintain a healthy pregnancy. There have also been multiple cases where pregnant workers have been demoted or forced into lower paying jobs because their employer refused to provide uniforms that can accommodate the worker's pregnancy even though the pregnancy did not affect the worker's ability to perform essential job functions. These are all examples of simple changes employers can provide to a pregnant worker's job duties or requirements that would not substantially inconvenience the employer, while allowing pregnant workers to continue working through their pregnancies. Yet, all too often, pregnant workers are being denied these reasonable accommodations, leading to impossible choices for these workers. Keep working in an unsafe environment. Is that a good choice? Taking leave early and running out before the baby is born? Or, No. 3, be let go or forced to quit and face the stress and financial strain that comes with losing their job. There is no need for this to happen. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act sets up a simple framework that is easily understood and utilized by both employers and employees. Under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a pregnant employee may request reasonable accommodations from their employer. The worker and the employer will then engage in an interactive process to determine how the employer can provide these reasonable accommodations to the worker. This protects both parties. The worker may not be forced to accept accommodations that are not needed and that do not address the original concern. The employer cannot be asked to provide an accommodation that would cause an undue burden on that employer. If this process sounds familiar, that is because we have carefully crafted it to closely resemble the process under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ADA is 30 years old--lots of case law in those years, testing and probing and examining this reasonable accommodations standard. So we have 30 years of evidence that reasonable accommodations is a way to protect workers who have a disability in the workplace, and it is also a great way to protect a pregnant worker. Reasonable accommodations. Mr. President, at this time I will yield to my colleague, the Chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Pensions, and Labor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the pending nominee, Arianna J. Freeman, who has been nominated to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. For those who may not know all the geography, that includes, under the jurisdiction of that court, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the Virgin Islands. Arianna Freeman has dedicated her legal career to service, especially in the Philadelphia community. After graduating from Swarthmore College and Yale Law School, Ms. Freeman returned to Philadelphia to start her legal career. After clerking for three Federal judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, she joined the Federal Community Defender Office in Philadelphia. Through her experience in the defender's office, she has briefed over 15 appeals in the Third Circuit and presented oral argument on seven occasions, including before the Third Circuit en banc, meaning the entire court. She has submitted four briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court as well. Her legal reputation, her intellect, her ability, and her integrity are unquestioned. I will just give you three or four examples of what others have said about her work. Former U.S. District Court Judge Giles wrote: Ms. Freeman has the character and intellectual attributes that will lead her to be a wonderful appeals court judge. She is discerning, open-minded, logical and is both a listener and contributor to debate and conversation. A group of appellate practitioners from the Third Circuit wrote as follows: Arianna Freeman has the strong intellect, tenacious work ethic, and even temperament necessary to become an outstanding federal judge. Her integrity and experience will ensure that she will be ready to serve from the first day. Third example: Given Arianna's background as a Federal public defender, perhaps most important is the praise that she has received from over 20 former Federal prosecutors. One group wrote: We are impressed by Arianna's diligence, intelligence, dedication, and integrity. It is because of her ethics and compassion, grounded in sensibility, that we are confident she will provide sound and measured opinions, while approaching each case without bias and with respect for the rule of law. So said 20 former Federal prosecutors. Arianna is so well respected that her nomination has garnered strong support even beyond the State of Pennsylvania, as evidenced by a letter submitted by over 30 law school professors from across the Nation who described Arianna Freeman as a ``brilliant, careful, and talented lawyer with impressive professional credentials and a strong commitment to fairness, equal justice, and the rule of law.'' There is no doubt that Arianna Freeman's extensive legal experience, keen intellect, and dedication to the principles of fairness and equal justice will serve the Third Circuit well. Furthermore, if confirmed, she will not only provide a critically important professional perspective to the Third Circuit as a career public defender; she will also become the first woman of color to serve on the Third Circuit and just the third active woman on that bench. This is an important and historic nomination not only for Pennsylvania but, of course, for the entire Third Circuit Court of Appeals. I would like to share a final passage from a letter written to the Senate Judiciary Committee by a group of law school deans from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware, led by Professor Danielle Conway from the Penn State Dickinson School of Law. They wrote: The nomination of Arianna J. Freeman to serve as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is inspired and her ultimate confirmation will be inspiring. As legislative leaders in this great society, the Committee and the full Senate will be favorably rewarded with history's account of how you worked to elevate this brilliant lawyer to the bench. It couldn't be said any better than that. I urge her confirmation and urge my colleagues to vote yes. I yield the floor.