Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to talk about another matter that will be before us in the days ahead. It should not be before us as it should have been done many months ago. In fact, if you want to count it by days, it should have been done about 100 days ago, as we have heard. That is the Children's Health Insurance Program, known by the acronym CHIP. Most Americans know what the CHIP program is. It is a program that became Federal law a little more than 20 years ago in order to provide an opportunity for healthcare for those families whose incomes were a little bit too high, maybe, to have their children enrolled in Medicaid but those families did not have their children's healthcare paid for by their employers. You had a lot of families--a lot of middle-income families or families near middle income--who were caught in between and didn't have opportunities for healthcare. So CHIP was passed. For the most part, it was bipartisan. All of these years now--decades later--it remains bipartisan, but it is not reauthorized. Probably, the only two numbers I will get into tonight are 9 and 180. What do I mean by that? I will start with Pennsylvania. So ``180'' means 180,000. That is the number of children, roughly, who were enrolled in the Children's Health Insurance Program as of December of 2017. If you look at it over the course of a year--of children becoming eligible and then maybe moving off of CHIP to some other insurance or having other changes--in Pennsylvania, roughly, in the last year, 340,000 children benefited, at one time or another, but the monthly number was 180,000 children just in Pennsylvania, and ``9'' was representative of the 9 million children across the country who were enrolled in CHIP. When we have all of these debates about what has to get done in the next couple of days and between now and the middle part of January, I hope that 9 million number will be uppermost in people's minds. Included within that are 180,000 children in Pennsylvania. This is really not about a number or a program. It is about real people, real people's lives. Every Member of the Senate has a constituent he could tell a story about or hundreds, if not thousands, of stories. I will just tell one tonight about a mom whom I met not too long ago, just about a week ago, Jennie Sheeks. Jennie is from Upper Makefield, PA. That is Bucks County, Southeastern Pennsylvania, just north of the city of Philadelphia. Jennie told us about her son Kam-au. Kam-au is 8 years old, and he is enrolled in the Children's Health Insurance Program. His brother and his sister have special needs and are Medicaid beneficiaries. So, in one family, you have an example of one child, thankfully, benefiting from the CHIP program and then two other members of that same family benefiting either from CHIP or the Medicaid Program. Thank goodness those programs are in place. Without CHIP and Medicaid, Jennie said her children would be uninsured because, even though both Jennie and her husband work full time, covering the whole family on her plan is too expensive. This is another example of working families who depend upon these programs for their children. They need these programs. These programs aren't theoretical. They aren't some far-off Washington debate about timing and leverage and negotiations and back-and-forth. This is about their real lives right now. As I said, the CHIP program should have been reauthorized 100 days ago, and it is inexcusable that it is not being done now. We all left here right after the tax vote. Everybody went back to his home State and, I am sure, had a great holiday season. Unfortunately, even though there was a little bit of a patch--a tiny, little patch made for this program--a lot of people left here with no worries at all and went back to their States and communities and neighborhoods, where there were a lot of other people worrying about whether they were going to get the kind of coverage for their children they should have a right to expect. Back to Jennie and her son. What are they going to do without the Children's Health Insurance Program? I cannot imagine--and few Senators or House Members can imagine--how Jennie and her son will get from here to there without having the Children's Health Insurance Program. I cannot imagine what it must be like for Jennie to worry about how she will pay for her son's care if he loses CHIP coverage. No parent should have that kind of stress in his life when there is an existing program that covers 9 million kids that should be reauthorized. When he was a public official, my father used to talk about people who had led lives of real struggle. We have all known them in our lives--people who have to work every day just to make ends meet in order to provide for their families and get through another day, another week, another month, another pay period. He used to refer to those Americans as leading ``quietly triumphant lives.'' My father's words for those who struggle--``quietly triumphant lives.'' There are a lot of families out there who lead very difficult lives, and they depend sometimes on the Children's Health Insurance Program or Medicaid or some other program just to get through another week, and I think about Jennie and parents like her who have to overcome so much to help their children--to love them, to care for them, to protect them, and to educate them. Even the most loving, caring, hard-working, and dedicated parent cannot provide the protections and the care health insurance coverage and quality healthcare can provide, the kind of quality healthcare from professionals that comes to that child because he or she has the protection of health insurance. Those parents--no matter how much they work, no matter how good they are to their children--sometimes cannot provide something as basic, obviously, as healthcare and, of course, the insurance coverage that makes it possible. We have legislation ready today, the KIDS Act, that is bipartisan. It has already moved through the Finance Committee unanimously. I don't think there was a single vote against it. If there was, it was not that loud a vote. I hope we can make these children a priority in the coming days, finally, at long last. There were a lot of deals made in the tax bill, a lot of numbers moved around to get the tax bill done. I understand that is part of any legislation, but if a tax bill can get done in the U.S. Senate, we can certainly have a vote to get the Children's Health Insurance Program reauthorized now that it is 100 days old. I see the distinguished majority leader is here so I will wrap up tonight with the words of Jennie's son Kam-au: I was happy when I got health insurance because I knew I could go to the doctor if I got hurt or sick. When I didn't have health insurance, I was a little worried . . . I think we should keep CHIP going so we can stay healthy. No better words were uttered or spoken about the Children's Health Insurance Program than Kam-au's, an 8-year-old, who said CHIP should stay in place so we can stay healthy. I agree. The American people agree. Let's get CHIP done. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask to speak in morning business.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this morning to outline some ideas about our national security as we approach the end of the year. Many Americans are heading into the holiday season with some very reasonable fears about the threats facing our Nation. In 2017, we saw an emboldened North Korean regime testing missiles and nuclear weapons. Terrorist groups continue to execute attacks across the globe. Violent state and nonstate actors continue to destabilize Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Yemen, Nigeria, and others. We saw Russia continue meddling in elections, just as they did in ours last year. This is a year of great volatility and uncertainty. However, we also saw the U.S. military leading an international coalition that is loosening the stranglehold ISIS had on parts of Iraq and Syria. We saw the recovery of American hostages, including constituents of mine, held captive for years by terrorists. In Europe, U.S. and NATO forces partnered to counter Russian aggression and dispel propaganda. U.S. development assistance projects helped hundreds of millions of people across the world, including 11 million farmers and 27\1/2\ million children under the Feed the Future Program. Even when it seemed like there were many reasons to be afraid, the U.S. military, diplomats, and development professionals were responsible for a lot of good progress this year. On Monday of this week, President Trump laid out his administration's national security strategy. I commend the work of the national security professionals who crafted the document which warrants a thorough review. It is a substantial body of work, but it paints a very dark picture of the world and our role in it. A little more than 2 years ago, I stood on this floor and invoked the words of Senator Vandenberg--the Senator from Michigan back in the World War II era--for ``maximum united effort'' and Senator Vandenberg's admonition that politics should stop at the water's edge. When I spoke these words, this was at a time when it seemed the only response my Republican colleagues had to the Obama administration's foreign policy moves was categorical condemnation. I will not categorically condemn the administration's new strategy, but I will pose a challenge to reject the false choice between investing at home and engaging abroad; utilize our diplomatic and development toolkit as much, if not more, than we exercise our defense capabilities; lead by example. The world will indeed become a dark place if we hide America's light under a bushel basket, to use words from Scripture. In the face of our adversaries' aggression, we can choose between competition and cooperation. The new strategy outlined by the administration references competition nearly three times more than cooperation. I suggest to the administration the words of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who said: ``Competition has been shown to be useful up to a certain point and no further, but cooperation, which is a thing we must strive for today, begins where competition leaves off.'' Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Democratic leader.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I want to thank the Democratic leader for his remarks. When I was speaking a few moments ago about national security, I had made a suggestion to the administration that there is a national security strategy that has been outlined and that the administration reject the false choice between investing at home and engaging abroad and make sure that they utilize our diplomatic and development toolkits as much as if not more than they exercise our defense capabilities. We have major challenges, and that is why I think it is important to outline this morning some of those challenges and some of our responses as we head into the new year. Just for discussion purposes, I wanted to paint the picture of a nation that--it doesn't describe one nation, but I think we can imagine a country that fits this description or at least a number of countries that might. Imagine a sovereign state, a member of the United Nations, a nation whose leaders are singularly focused on staying in power and who will do anything to remain in power, including undermining their colleagues and erstwhile friends. In this country I am describing, those who speak truth to power are dismissed, ridiculed, or, at worst, treated as criminals. This particular country or profile of a country looks inward, putting its domestic troubles first as its reputation in the world declines. Out of fear of its near-peer competitors, the country retreats from diplomatic engagement and doubles down on military capabilities. Does this sound familiar? It might to some. It may describe a number of countries in whole or in part. Of course, there are a number of countries that fit this description. Certainly, the dictatorial regimes that rule North Korea, Syria, and Iran prioritize self-preservation over the welfare of their citizens. In Russia and China, journalists and opposition leaders are regularly silenced, jailed, or worse. Here in the United States, we are going through an especially turbulent chapter in the American story. As we celebrate the holidays, we might be dreading the inevitable political debates with family members or friends whose views differ from ours. However, in that fictitious, oppressive country that I described earlier, you can't have these debates, or you can try, but you won't last too long because the authorities will come knocking. That is what is great about our country. The United States is the land of the free and the home of the brave, and I am reminded of that every time I meet with servicemembers and veterans who are willing to put their lives on the line every day to defend our inalienable rights to criticize and to disagree with our leaders. So what about this new strategy that the administration just outlined this week? This new strategy states, in pertinent part, that ``America possesses unmatched political, economic, military, and technological advantages.'' That is what the strategy says, and that is certainly true. But I think we should add a few other advantages, even attributes, that are part of the American story, part of the American advantage. Certainly, our history of generosity sets us apart from the world, a tradition of pluralism as well, the freedom to debate and dissent without fear, the respect for the rule of law, and finally a culture of innovation unmatched anywhere in the world. As I have said before, Americans don't wait for the future; we invent the future. Through the execution of its strategy, the administration has an opportunity to invent the future of our Nation, as well as its role in the world--a future where the American economy is firing on all cylinders, where investments here at home lift up everyone, where our researchers and manufacturers lead the world in the production of cutting-edge technologies. For the last 11 months, this administration has sent the world mixed signals about what ``America first'' really means, from pulling out of the Paris climate agreement, to threatening to walk away from NATO, to hollowing out the State Department. I believe the strategy implementation presents an opportunity to reverse that course. We cannot turn away from the world and try to go it alone. We should ask our allies, certainly, to pull their weight and pay their fair share. Whether it is NATO or the counter-ISIS coalition, the United States can always press our partners to do more, but not by threatening that we will abandon these alliances or by creating any uncertainty about these alliances. Simply put, we need partners to tackle some of the greatest threats facing our Nation and the world. Let's go through a couple of them. North Korea is first on the list. The North Korean regime is unpredictable and armed with nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the means to deliver them. Just across the demilitarized zone are tens of thousands of U.S. forces and our South Korean allies. Just across the water are more U.S. military personnel and our Japanese allies. This regime is a significant threat--the North Korean regime. It is a threat exacerbated by reckless ridicule, bombastic statements, and ill-considered tweets. One miscalculation can be disastrous. The administration should accelerate serious, sober diplomacy in lockstep with our allies. For the New Year, let's agree to a new rule for all of us--both branches of government: Leave the tweets for domestic policy only. Sound foreign policy and security policy cannot be done in 280 characters. Congress has offered the administration powerful leverage in this circumstance in the form of several pieces of legislation. First, the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act passed this summer, and the Banking Restrictions Involving North Korea Act is pending before the Senate now. I support these tough, bipartisan sanctions measures because I believe turning the economic screws, coupled with genuine diplomacy, can yield results. In the New Year, I urge the President to tone down the rhetoric and to empower the Secretary of State and our senior diplomats to find a diplomatic path toward a stable North Korea that doesn't threaten the United States or our allies. How about terrorist groups around the world? Over the last 16 years, the U.S. military, the intelligence community, and our homeland security professionals have worked hand in hand to meet the rise of terrorist groups head on. We owe the men and women in uniform a debt of gratitude for tirelessly leading the coalition fight that has rolled back ISIS's territorial gains. Implementing the administration's new strategy and its call to fight terrorism at its source is not just about the military fight. The United States should also lead the international community in addressing the underlying issues that drive terrorist recruitment and help to rebuild communities newly liberated from terrorist control. Think about this. More than 65 million people around the world are displaced from their homes right now. There is no purely military solution for this refugee crisis. A successful counterterrorism strategy requires us to work with our partners for information sharing and for contributions of development assistance. Another trouble spot in the world is Syria. In Syria, the connection between instability, displacement, and terrorism is clear. This conflict has been raging for nearly 7 years. In the absence of U.S. engagement on a political solution to this crisis, regional powers-- namely, Russia, Iran, and Turkey--have run the table, to the benefit of the murderous Assad regime and at the expense of the Syrian people. The United States has abdicated its leadership role and ceded control of the outcomes to nations with interests often in direct conflict with our own. Recently, we learned that the administration will endorse a political transition plan that leaves Bashar al-Assad in power for at least another 4 years. This is unacceptable and dangerous. Assad is responsible for terrible war crimes that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Syrians and the displacement of millions more. The strategy outlined by the administration says: ``We will seek a settlement to the Syrian civil war that sets the conditions for refugees to return home and rebuild their lives and safety.'' I agree with that goal. Most people would agree with that goal, but the administration has missed the bigger picture. We need a strategy that pushes back on Russian and Iranian influence in Syria and addresses the underlying grievances that led to the conflict in the first place. Let me move to Iran. The Iranian regime remains a powerful force for instability in the Middle East, especially through its support of terrorist proxies and militias. We know that the Iranians want to maintain control of territory linking Tehran with Beirut. So they will continue to act against U.S. interests in Iraq and Syria. Here, again, Congress has offered powerful tools to the administration in the form of the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act. The nuclear deal with Iran is giving us an unprecedented visibility on the Iranian nuclear program, but the multilateral diplomatic channels built alongside that agreement have atrophied under this administration. Every time the President threatens to walk away from the Iran nuclear deal, he sends a clear signal to our allies and adversaries alike: U.S. commitments are written in disappearing ink. If the administration wants to get tough on Iran's nonnuclear bad behavior, there are concrete steps to take today: No. 1, work with our allies to step up maritime interdictions of any illicit weapons traffic to or from Iran. No. 2, push the Europeans to do more to combat the financial networks that enrich the Iranian terrorist proxy, Hezbollah. My bipartisan Stop Terrorist Operational Resources and Money Act, or the so-called STORM Act, which is bipartisan, could help with that. No. 3, begin diplomatic conversations with our allies about a multilateral strategy to curtail the Iranian ballistic missile program. All of these efforts take cooperation with our allies, which the President makes harder every time he calls into question the future of the nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Finally, as to Russia and China, the new strategy by this administration repeatedly describes Russia and China as our competitors. Let me be clear. These countries are not our friends. They actively work against U.S. interests. They are threatened by American military dominance and economic power, and both are trying to game the system to undermine our advantages. China systemically, perniciously games the international trade system to its advantage. I firmly believe American workers and industry can outinnovate and outproduce any others in the world when the playing field is level. Driven by similar motives, Russia has meddled in elections across the Western world, trying to undermine confidence in one of our most fundamental institutions of democracy. Again, there are concrete steps the administration can take to counter these threats from both China and Russia: No. 1, shore up our electoral systems and help others do the same; No. 2, counter propaganda; No. 3, fight corruption; and No. 4, get serious about holding trade cheaters like China accountable. Through engagement and cooperation, we can lead the rest of the world away from the Cold War-era clash of major powers that Russia and China want to create. In conclusion, if this outline of some of the threats and challenges posed seems like a tremendous challenge--a great challenge for our Nation--it is because it always has been so. It has always been a challenge. President Truman once said: America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and on unbeatable determination to do the job at hand. When faced with a challenge, whether it is Pennsylvanians or Americans, we don't shrink inward. We step up. Our adversaries want us to be divided and dispirited. These adversaries underestimate the courage, the imagination, and the determination of the American people. President Trump might see it differently, but as we close out 2017, I see a world that needs American leadership more than ever. To paraphrase President Kennedy, we should seek not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war but a genuine peace that makes life on Earth worth living. The American people are ready to rise to that challenge. I hope the administration is too. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about ``A Beautiful Here,'' a memoir by Linda Phillips that chronicles her struggle to overcome the extraordinary grief of losing her son, Nuci, to suicide following his long battle with depression. Linda writes about an empathetic, caring, and happy child who grows increasingly distressed through adolescence. Nuci retreated from their close-knit family and, despite their efforts to support him through several periods of crisis and treatments, he succumbed to his disease. Though the family was distraught and heartbroken by Nuci's death, Linda Phillips was also appalled at the lack of supports for individuals struggling with suicide and for families who have lost loved ones to depression. At multiple points, Nuci failed to receive services or the compassionate support he needed. Indeed, after calling a crisis hotline while in college, Nuci was taken into custody by police and placed in handcuffs. Ultimately, the incident resulted in his expulsion. On another occasion, he was told to wait over a month for services when seeking support for his depression while in school. Linda also saw other families pull their children from much-needed treatment programs because they could not afford the costly care. She saw firsthand that survivors of suicide are often relegated to the shadows, met by uncomfortable silence, or blamed for their loved ones' deaths. Linda's personal account sheds light on this tragic and pervasive problem. Though Nuci Phillips took his own life 20 years ago, his story, sadly, remains just as relevant today. The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention reports that nearly 36,000 American's die by suicide each year; that is one American every 15 minutes. According to the Center for Disease Control, CDC, suicide is the third leading cause of death among young people between the ages of 10 and 24 and results in approximately 4,600 lives lost each year. In recent years, a shocking number of young people have attempted or ended their life through suicide as a result of bullying. Though not all instances of bullying lead to suicide, bully victims are between two to nine times more likely to consider suicide than nonvictims, according to studies by Yale University. Nearly one in four students aged 12 to 18 are affected by bullying and harassment, according to recent data from the Department of Education. Another Department study estimates that 60,000 students in the U.S. do not attend school each day because they fear being bullied. Bullying and harassment are a significant problem in our schools. These are issues that we can begin to address today by confronting bullying in our schools through strong antibullying policies. In far too many communities, whether in Pennsylvania or across the Nation, we are forced to deal with tragic consequences of bullying or harassment when these policies or organizations do not exist. Other resources include school counselors and crisis hotlines. My bill, the Safe Schools Improvement Act, may not prevent all incidences of bullying, but it is an important step in the direction of tackling this problem and holding school districts accountable. Depression and suicide, whether brought on by bullying or not, is a serious disease with potentially deadly results. More teenagers and young adults die from suicide than from cancer, heart disease, AIDS, birth defects, stroke, pneumonia, influenza, and chronic lung disease combined. We must fight against this destructive illness by ensuring all children and young adults have access to affordable and effective mental health treatment and services, such as counseling, medication, and crisis intervention. I would like to thank Linda Phillips for sharing her story and helping to shine a light on this pervasive disease.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to commend Robert Mueller's career as a public servant and to condemn partisan, political attacks on Mr. Mueller's reputation and American democratic systems. A brief glance at Mr. Mueller's biography reflects his consistent commitment to serve the American people with honor and courage. As a young man, Mr. Mueller served with distinction in the Vietnam war. His list of commendations and military decorations, including a Bronze Star, two Navy Commendation Medals, the Purple Heart, and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, are emblematic of his leadership and exemplary service. Mr. Mueller not only fought courageously on the battlefield, but upon returning home and earning his law degree, he continued serving his country throughout his legal career. He cut his teeth working in U.S. attorney's offices in Boston and San Francisco for over a decade, and when he later served at the Department of Justice, Mr. Mueller was nominated by President George H. W. Bush to lead the criminal division, where he oversaw cases as diverse as the prosecution of Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega and the Lockerbie bombing. In 1995, Mr. Mueller's dedication to public service led him to leave a high-paying position at a private firm to join the DC U.S. attorney's office homicide division to hold violent offenders accountable for their crimes. Three years later, he became a U.S. attorney himself, serving in San Francisco and earning himself a reputation as a dogged and fair prosecutor committed to enforcing the rule of law. In 2001, Mr. Mueller was nominated by a second Republican President, George W. Bush, as the Director of the FBI, a position to which he was confirmed unanimously by this body. Whether navigating our response to the atrocities of 9/11, leading the Bureau's reform in its aftermath, or trailblazing the Bureau's role in combating cyber crimes, his tenure has been widely lauded. In fact, in 2011, as his 10-year term was set to end, we in the Senate voted 100 to 0 to extend his term until 2013. In an era of increasing political and cultural tribalism, each time Mr. Mueller has been named or nominated for a new position, he has received bipartisan and unabashed praise--and rightly so. Mr. Mueller, as an expert in law enforcement, could not be better suited for the task at hand: an investigation into Russia's interference in the U.S. elections. That Russia interfered in our elections is neither conjecture nor an attempt to rewrite the political outcomes of 2016. It is a fact that was true for the U.S. and many European allies in the last year and will remain a serious risk to the validity of our future elections if we do not take action. Mr. Mueller's investigation will serve as a necessary step to secure the ability of Americans to cast their vote in confidence for those who will represent them in Washington. Nothing could be more sacred or more American. Serious, prudent, and thorough congressional oversight is always appropriate. Reckless, partisan attacks on the integrity of an honest public servant are not the same as congressional oversight. Attacks like these embolden our enemies, animate opponents of democracy, and inspire terrorists. These attacks are nothing short of unpatriotic. I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up for the integrity of the process that Mr. Mueller is leading. Skepticism of the outcomes of his investigation triggered by dishonest smears on Mr. Mueller's reputation by Washington politicians would have lasting results and would compromise the ability of law enforcement to protect U.S. from our enemies, foreign and domestic.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise this afternoon to talk about the Children's Health Insurance Program and, particularly, the reauthorization of that program. By reauthorization I mean taking action to continue a program that is not just worthy but battle-tested now for almost a quarter of a century nationally, at least 20 years. In States like Pennsylvania, it is more than 20 years, more like 25. The unfortunate reality, though, is this isn't done. This program should have been reauthorized at the end of September, and it is not done yet. It has gone from unacceptable to inexcusable. We should not leave this week without either having it reauthorized or having a game plan that would guarantee it will be reauthorized in the very early days of 2018, literally, the early days of January. In just the last 2 weeks, I met with families across Pennsylvania and even families that came from beyond Pennsylvania here to Washington to talk about what the Children's Health Insurance Program means to them. CHIP provides health insurance to some 9 million American children each year, including over 342,000 children in Pennsylvania, if you look at it over the course of the year. As you might recall, when the CHIP program expired on September 30, there were a lot of indications or promises made that it would be reauthorized rather soon, but that was 81 days ago. Whether you want to express it in days or months--81 days or 2\1/2\ months or more now--that is inexcusable. We have to get this done for these families. I just saw a report this morning on ``NBC News'' that profiled a family. They were talking in this case to the mom and talking to her children, and it was a very moving story about the importance of the Children's Health Insurance Program and what would happen to that family if the program were not reauthorized. This is a bipartisan program. It was bipartisan in its inception in the mid-1990s, and it has remained bipartisan. Now there is only one party that runs the House, the Senate, and the administration, and I hope that this one party--in this case, the Republican Party--can get the votes. You don't even have to talk about votes. It is really talking about floor time and really making sure there is an agreement on a pay-for. The most recent action by the Finance Committee on CHIP was in the Keep Kids' Insurance Dependable and Secure Act, known by the acronym KIDS. The KIDS Act came through the Finance Committee by a voice vote. That almost never happens, even on reauthorization. There was a voice vote on October 4. It seems like a long time ago now. It is ready to go. If it came onto the Senate floor, we can pass it here. I have to ask: Why isn't that happening? Maybe the better person to ask that question would be a family who is benefiting and who could be harmed if it is not reauthorized. I am thinking about Connie, a woman I met here in Washington just last week. Then, I saw her again on Monday in Pittsburgh at Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh. That is one of those great institutions for children across our country. She was there with two of her children. Carmen and Diego are both on the CHIP program. CHIP provides good health insurance so that they can get the healthcare they need. I had a picture with Connie's daughter Carmen here in Washington. She dutifully handed me a copy of the picture when I saw her just a few days later in Pittsburgh at Children's Hospital. Both Carmen and Diego might lose their health insurance because there is a lot of activity here and focus and a result when it comes to a big tax bill. In this case, it is a tax bill that gives permanent corporate tax cuts to multinational, profitable corporations. At the same time, there is almost no action or any sense of momentum right now to get the Children's Health Insurance Program in place again, or reauthorized, as we call it. We had an event here in Washington yesterday where not only were there child advocates but so many others coming together to talk about this program. Maybe the most important thing we did yesterday, in addition to the mechanics, was to talk about the children in the room. Here are the children and the States they came from. I will just read through them quickly: Jason and Kelsey from Utah; Deanna came from New York; Malachi came from Colorado; Addie and Cailin from Kentucky; Patience, Serenity, Tyler, and Harmonie, all from the State of Texas; Jeridan, Kendra, and Makayla from the State of Wisconsin; and, finally, another Michaela--spelled a different way--and Grace came from the State of West Virginia. They and their parents--these children and their parents--spoke about what CHIP means to their families. Several of the parents said CHIP means their children can get the prescription eyeglasses they need. I have to ask: How is a child supposed to learn and succeed in school without eyeglasses? CHIP provides that. So while these kids don't know if they are going to be able to get the glasses they need to be able to read and to learn, the Senate is busy passing a tax bill. It is OK to pass a tax bill, even if I didn't agree with it, but we should find the time in the remaining hours of this year to get CHIP done. I saw a tweet just 2 days ago that said the following: ``Congress must renew funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program so the parents of the nine million children who are covered by CHIP can know their children's healthcare is secure.'' The good news about that tweet is, it was a Member of Congress. The even better news is, it was a Senator. Better news even than that, the Senator happened to be the Senate majority leader, Senator McConnell. I ask Senator McConnell, please allow floor time and please obtain the consensus you need in your own party to get this on to the floor and get it passed. As I said, the KIDS Act, the Finance Committee bill, is ready to go. I ask for the majority leader's help because I know he cares about this program as well. We have to get this done. Just a final note before I yield the floor. I wanted to note several other healthcare priorities that Congress must address. Community health centers are facing a funding cliff that will hurt millions of people around the country, and over 800,000 in Pennsylvania whom they serve, and other priority community health centers. Medicare extenders--meaning tax provisions that are extended from one year to the next or from one year into the future--including support for rural hospitals and lifting the so-called therapy cap to ensure seniors and people with disabilities have access to physical and occupational therapy services have also expired, just like the CHIP program, or will expire at the end of this calendar year. Failing to address these extensions is also unacceptable and will harm our children, our seniors, and our communities. So we have a lot of work to do in a short amount of time on all of these healthcare issues. I think we should start with voting on and reauthorizing the Children's Health Insurance Program for 9 million American children. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I want people to make sure that people know the document. This is the document, JCX-68-17. If you look at the category of Americans who are making $100,000 or less--that is 57 million households who make under $100,000--they would see either a tax increase of one kind or another or a tax cut of less than $9 a month in 2019. I don't think that is much help when we consider that it is not as if that is the only revenue available--that all we can come up with is $9 a month--because I just walked through the other number which is relevant--the $36 billion that will come in 2019, the second year that the bill is in effect, going to households worth more than $1 million. If I had to choose, I would say that we should give all of that $36 billion to middle-income families or folks trying to get to the middle class or at least a substantial percentage of the $36 billion. I have been asking for months: Why do people making more than $1 million, that category of Americans, need $36 billion in tax cuts? I don't think they do. It is interesting--I want to commend the work of the ranking member of the Finance Committee. In some of our debates, one of the numbers that came out in the last couple of weeks was what has happened to the top 1 percent since 1980. I said several times that they have had a bonanza. I didn't have an exact number when I said that; now I do. Since 1980, the share of national income for these folks in the top 1 percent, which is less than $1 million a year, but it is about $730,000 and up, so that is--the 1 percent goes beyond the millionaires and up. But since 1980, the top 1 percent have had their share of national income go up from 11 percent to 20 percent, from 1980 to 2014, so it has almost doubled. So my point is, they have done pretty well since 1980, so why do a big share of them--meaning the million-dollar-and-up crowd--why should they get $36 billion in this tax bill? It doesn't make a lot of sense. So that is one way to look at it. What we could invest these dollars in--a bigger tax cut for the middle, a bigger tax cut for those struggling to get to the middle, working families trying to get to the middle, or other priorities, such as infrastructure. I mentioned just one idea on rural broadband. I think rural America should get some help being connected to the internet. That is one way we could focus on priorities. Let me give another example--the estate tax. As many people know, once fully implemented, this bill doubles the estate tax--it exempts the first $22 million of inheritance from the tax, which is $11 million per individual. The cost of doing that will be roughly $9 billion a year. In the earlier versions of the House and Senate bills, that number was a lot higher. There was a lot higher revenue loss from the elimination of the estate tax, but even with the changes, there is still a revenue loss of an estimated $9 billion a year. Well, what could we do with $9 billion? Well, in the midst of this debate about the Children's Health Insurance Program, just for 5 years of the Children's Health Insurance Program, that is roughly the number that we need. So 1 year of revenue losses from the estate tax equals 5 years, roughly, of paying for the Children's Health Insurance Program. And that is not done yet. The Children's Health Insurance Program expired September 30, and I hope that in the midst of all of this work on tax policy, we are going to get that done. I know that the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, for years, from the beginning, has been a strong advocate of the Children's Health Insurance Program, and I commend him for that, but we have to get it reauthorized in a few short days. I wanted to talk as well--I know I probably am limited on time, and I will move quickly--on the Republican budget because you can't really read the tax changes in isolation; you have to also consider them in the context of the Republican budget resolution that passed. That budget proposal, which did pass, proposes to cut Medicaid by $1 trillion over the next 10 years. So that is $1 trillion with a ``t'' for Medicaid. The Republican budget also proposes to cut Medicare by over $400 billion over the same period, over 10 years. So the proposal roughly proposes to cut about $1.5 trillion from just Medicare and Medicaid. All the while, this Republican tax bill contains almost the same amount of unpaid-for tax cuts. We heard recently from Speaker Ryan that he wants to ``reform'' Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Well, my view of that is, when they talk about reform in that context, that means cutting--cutting funding for programs that working men and women of my home State of Pennsylvania and the country have paid into to ensure that they have some retirement savings and a safety net for when tragedies and unforeseen events occur. Some people refer to Social Security and Medicare as earned benefits because they are. They have earned those benefits for Social Security and Medicare. How about outsourcing? The Republican tax bill gives U.S. companies that offshore jobs a large tax cut on old profits that is unavailable to companies that kept jobs and production in the United States. This means that a company that outsourced to Mexico to take advantage of cheap labor will pay less taxes on accumulated profits than a domestic company that kept jobs in the United States. In fact, once the bill is enacted, some profits from an overseas factory may never be taxed in the United States, while a company that keeps those jobs here could be taxed at the U.S. corporate tax rate. This disparity could actually encourage companies to move production and jobs overseas. We mentioned earlier the tax cut for major corporations. One of the great leaders of corporate America for many, many years, Jack Bogle of Vanguard, said the following a few weeks ago. I don't know what political party Jack Bogle is in, but he said this most recently about corporate profits: Corporate profits after taxes last year were the highest they've ever been in the history of GDP going back to 1929. And we are thinking of giving relief to the corporations at the highest levels ever. Individual wages are at the lowest level in about 15 years as a percent of GDP. Those are not my words; those are Jack Bogle's words. So corporations will have a tax windfall to spend on increasing executive compensation if they want or increasing stock buybacks or increasing dividends. All this is with absolutely no guarantees that workers will see benefits from this tax cut, despite assertions by many here in Washington about what would happen on wages and other benefits. Mr. President, I have maybe 3 more minutes. I know we are maybe a little over time. There has been a little bit of discussion--not enough--about what happens to the Consumer Price Index, which is used as a baseline for measuring programs over time. Maybe the most pernicious tax--and that is the best word for it--in the bill is the so-called Chained CPI, which alters the way inflation is measured. This bill raises an estimated $134 billion on the backs of hard-working Americans by changing how the Tax Code measures inflation--so-called Chained CPI. So it is the measurement of inflation that is going to change, and that is going to have an adverse consequence for untold millions of Americans. This number grows over time. The Joint Committee on Taxation told us that this single provision increases taxes by at least three times as much in the next decade as it did in the first decade-- potentially as high as $400 billion in the second 10 years. This will be in full force when a lot of young people are entering the workforce. Someone who is just starting their professional life will see this tax increase haunt their paychecks for the next 50 years. There is a lot we could talk about in terms of missed opportunities here, but let me conclude with this: There is nothing in this bill that invests in rebuilding America. I thought we would have an opportunity to do that, as we seemed to be headed that way a couple of years ago, but we don't have that opportunity with this bill. We could be using this opportunity to make a substantial investment in roads, bridges, schools, water systems, or the like, but that won't happen. In our State, we have 4,500 structurally deficient bridges, and we wish that we would get some more help in addition to State dollars going for those. There is nothing in the bill to expand college affordability and nothing to ensure that workers' wages increase. Amendments like that were offered in the committee. It was all Democrats for the amendment and all Republicans against it. Those in the middle class and those working to join the middle class continue to tread water in this bill, while the superrich zoom ahead. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I wish to commend the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee for his hopes for more bipartisanship and his concern about the way the Senate is working today. I appreciate that. I think we all hope that in the new year there will be more bipartisanship. I think there are some areas where we can work together. On this issue, though, I think we have some basic disagreements, and we are still debating those and articulating our differences before we cast a vote tonight. I have said for a number of weeks now--not months but certainly weeks--when describing the bill that is before us, the prior iteration of the bill in the Finance Committee and the version in the House, that I thought that each one of them had a few things in common, in my judgment. This is my sense of the overall bill. First of all, I think every one of these bills has been a giveaway to the rich or the superrich and a giveaway to profitable corporations. I think it is excessive. We have a difference of opinion on that. This is a tax bill, and yet it will have a substantially adverse impact on health care because of one basic provision that was added in the last couple of weeks. That provision alone will cause healthcare premiums to increase by an additional 10 percent a year, and it will cause 13 million people to lose their healthcare, according to the Congressional Budget Office, including, by one estimate, 5 million fewer Americans benefitting from Medicaid. At a time when we should invest substantially in the middle class and invest in our children, roads, bridges, schools, scientific research, skills training, and broadband in rural communities--we can make the list even longer--this tax bill prevents that from happening in a significant way because of the giveaways that I talked about to profitable corporations and the superrich. This bill will literally pay for a permanent corporate tax cut on the backs of middle-class families in the next decade. Congress's official scorekeeper, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, tells us that in the next decade, meaning the second 10 years that this bill is in effect, the bill uses hundreds of billions in tax increases on working families to pay for a permanent corporate rate cut. I will say that again. In the next decade, taxes go up for you across America, working families, to pay for a 14-percentage-point cut for profitable corporations. This kind of result, where we have a corporate tax break which increases debt and someone else has to pay for it down the road, is a result that only a swamp dweller could support, but unfortunately that is where we are today. How about for children? There has been a lot of discussion about the child tax credit. Thankfully, there was debate about that. We don't talk about children in this body nearly enough or that tax credit, but, unfortunately, even the proposals by some on the Republican side weren't adequate enough. Even the ones rejected may not have been enough. Under this legislation parents of 10 million children in the lowest income working families will either receive no improvement in the child tax credit or a token increase of $1 to $75. The last minute changes to the bill, which got a lot of publicity in the last couple of days--those last-minute changes to the bill--will do nothing additional for these families. Another 14 million children in low- and middle-income working families would get something by way of the child tax credit but less than the full $1,000 per child increase that a family making $400,000 a year would receive. For a fraction of the hundreds of billions of dollars going to the very wealthy and profitable corporations, we could have, in this bill, made sure that every low-income parent gets the full $2,000 per child tax credit, but because of the way the bill is written, it doesn't allow that to happen for every low-income parent. I think that would have been a worthy goal of the legislation, but that is not where we are. To say that is unfair is a vast overstatement. The families who need it the most aren't getting the full benefit of the child tax credit increase, but those who are wealthy get an extra $2,000 of child tax credit. I mentioned the Joint Committee on Taxation. Let me give you another way to look at the bill according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. The JCT estimates that in 2019 alone, the second year the bill is in effect, were it to pass, more than $36 billion in tax cuts will go to households worth more than $1 million. That is in the document entitled JCX-68-17 of the Joint Committee on Taxation. It is a $36 billion cut for the wealthiest Americans, while over 57 million middle-class households--my definition for those making under $100,000--will see a tax increase or tax cut of less than $9 a month in 2019. So for 57 million middle-class households, they will see a tax increase or a tax cut of less than $9 a month in 2019. Instead of lining the pockets of the rich with $36 billion in tax cuts in 2019, that money could have been used to connect Americans to the internet, especially Americans who live in rural areas. Let me be precise: 39 percent of the people living in rural America don't have high-speed internet.

Mr. CASEY. Yes.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask to speak in morning business.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Colorado. I heard most of his remarks, some of them on television before my moving to come over here to speak. I am grateful for his commitment to the arguments that he has made on tax reform and his commitment not only to the people of his State but to the people of our country. I will be speaking about tax reform later this week.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to talk about this so-called DACA Program for the Dreamers, the young people whom we have heard so much about, especially in the last couple of months. As many people across the country know, in September, President Trump ended the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, known as DACA. This decision and, so far, congressional refusal to pass the Dream Act have created both fear and uncertainty for nearly 800,000 young people across our country, so-called DACA recipients. I know that a lot of Americans have met these young people over the course of not just the last couple of months but maybe over the course of many years. I had that chance most recently, at least on two occasions, when we set up time to sit with young people who were Pennsylvanians. Once was in the city of Philadelphia, where I sat with young people from both Philadelphia and Lancaster, which is not too far of a drive from Philadelphia--about an hour or so. They came to Philadelphia to sit with us. Then a couple of months later, it was in the Lehigh Valley, which is about an hour just north of Philadelphia. The first group was a larger group of maybe 15 young people, and the second group was a group of 3 individuals. In both of those meetings, I was struck by not just how concerned and worried these young people were about what would happen to them and happen to their friends and, in a larger sense, happen to their families, but I was impressed by their stories--what they had achieved in their young lives. I was also moved by the commitment that they have had to hard work, to being part of the fabric of America, and the real concern that they have had about and the love they have for their own parents. They worried about how this might affect their parents but also had love for the commitment that their parents had made and their family members had made to allow them to succeed in coming here, in some cases as babies or as very young children, and to live in America for all of these years, not technically as citizens but to live full lives. They were made a promise by the President of the United States that if they were to come forward and make certain disclosures, this program would protect them. I think that promise is inviolate and should not be broken by any administration. Congress certainly has work to do to enforce the promise and to give the promise an even stronger foundation. You don't have to be on one side of the aisle or the other to be moved by these stories, and I will get to some of the details later. One of the young women was in the first group that I mentioned when we were sitting around a big conference table. Of course, these individuals don't have to sit with me, and they don't have to travel to tell their stories, but they are worried. They are concerned about the policy and how it might affect their lives. One young woman said to me: The only country I have ever known doesn't seem to want us--or at least that was her impression. She has lived nowhere else. If you go person after person after person, these are young people who have lived here virtually their whole lives even though they technically were not born here. They have achieved so much and have gone through our schools. Our Nation has invested in them, and they have succeeded in holding down jobs and getting educations and getting higher educations. All they ask is that we set up a process so that they will not be deported. It doesn't make a lot of sense, the direction in which we seem to be heading. Rescinding the DACA Program will cost the United States of America jobs. I think it will hurt our security over time. As I said before, it is a broken promise--a promise that was made to young people by our government. It was not just a casual promise but, I would argue, a commitment, a bond, an agreement that should be honored. As I have said so many times before--and I will keep saying it--why would other countries believe us when we make a commitment if we cannot keep our commitment to these young people? Something on the order of 800,000 young people who live in the United States of America were promised that if they came forward, they would be protected. Why would any country believe us after that if we were to break that promise? Why would they believe Republicans or Democrats? Why would they believe the administration--this administration or future administrations--or this Congress or future Congresses down the road, the House and Senate? If we were to break that promise, would our word be good around the world? These Dreamers are young people who have lived in this country since they were children. They have been law-abiding residents. They have learned English. They pay taxes. They have secured jobs that have supported themselves and their families. They were made a promise. What are some of the numbers? Here is the economic impact in the context of one State in our country. In Pennsylvania alone, estimates say that ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program would cost the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania nearly $357 million per year in GDP losses. This is according to the Center for American Progress. So, for one State, it is $357 million. How about for the Nation? The comparable number for the Nation is about $460 billion. The first number was with an ``m''--millions--in the context of the State. The second number is $460 billion, with a ``b''--almost half a trillion dollars--from the GDP over the next decade. Roughly, in the context of a yearly number, it is $46 billion a year. Even if you don't think that we have to honor the promise, even if you don't believe in the program, why would we want to take a step that would hurt our economy in our losing about $46 billion every year for 10 years, adding up to $460 billion over 10 years? According to FWD.us, 91 percent of DACA recipients are employed, and repealing DACA could result in an average of 8,500 DACA recipients-- young people--losing their jobs each week as a result of that. There are 91 percent of them who are employed--working--in the United States of America. It is the country that promised them that if they came forward, we would give them protection. They are working every day, following the law, loving this country. We have told them, at best, that their status or their fate is uncertain. That is the best that we can say about what has happened between the administration's making the announcement a number of months ago and Congress's doing nothing to address this problem. DACA recipients have jobs in sectors that are critical to our economy, such as healthcare, science and technology, and engineering and math--so-called STEM jobs. Additionally, more than one out of every seven DACA-eligible immigrants has language skills that are currently in short supply in the U.S. military, according to the New American Economy. The U.S. military benefits when we have individuals residing in our country who have that skill in languages. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimates that the 1.3 million young people who are enrolled in or who are eligible for DACA pay $2 billion each year in State and local taxes. So they are working, and they are paying taxes. Dreamers across Pennsylvania and the Nation represent the America that we should all be proud of. I think everyone could agree to that in the work that they are doing and their commitment to our country. We should be proud of that. This is a country in which hard-working young people who are working to better themselves and their communities are given a chance to do just that. That is the kind of country we all profess to believe in. That is the kind of Nation that we want to be. Another estimate is that between September 5, 2017, when the program was terminated, and March 5, 2018, which is the deadline that is coming up, 122 DACA recipients will lose their protection every day. That means that by March 5 of 2018, 22,000 Dreamers will have lost their DACA protection. Congress should move immediately--the U.S. Senate should move immediately--to make sure that we protect these Dreamers and pass the so-called bipartisan Dream Act. Here is what the bill would do in short form. It would allow the Dreamers to become permanent residents if they meet the very stringent qualifications outlined in the bill. We aren't talking about any kind of a free pass. These are young people who have worked so hard to become the very sort of Americans we want: employed, law-abiding, and paying taxes. The numbers of Dreamers in Pennsylvania are about 5,900 individuals who have been given DACA status. Passing the Dream Act would give these young people some security and a future they can count on. I was proud to support a version of the Dream Act back in 2007 and 2010. We should have an up-or-down vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate that is a clean version of the Dream Act--not embedded in some other legislation--but an up-or-down vote on the Dream Act. Let's see where people stand. I would hope it would be an overwhelming vote. I think it probably would be. Let's have an up-or-down vote for these young people. Let's keep the promise to these Dreamers so our promise is good here at home, and our promise and our word and our credibility will be good the world over because if we break that promise, it is going to be pretty difficult for people around the world to believe us on a whole host of fronts. I know that may offend somebody, but that is the way I see it. Keeping a promise is the principal reason to pass the Dream Act, but we should also try to help our economy, not allow our economy to lose hundreds of billions of dollars over 10 years, tens of billions each and every year because we are deporting people who have offered so much to the country, who have worked so hard, who have become part of the fabric of American life, part of the fabric of the American family. These are folks who live in every community, who are part of the fabric of a neighborhood, part of the fabric of a community, part of the fabric of a school, part of the fabric of a State, and the fabric of a nation. The third reason we should pass the Dream Act is to unite our country. This is one area where we can all come together. We might have a lot of disagreements, and they will be played out this week on the tax bill, on this issue or that issue, but we can bring the country together. Most people in both parties understand what this is all about. They understand the promise, they understand the impact on our economy, and they also understand that a great country can make the right decision on this issue. By uniting our country on the Dream Act, we can make a downpayment on a bright future for these young people who love the United States of America and who have demonstrated that by their commitment to the country, by their work ethic, and by the commitment they have made to their communities. Let's pass the Dream Act. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I want to cover two topics. There is so much to cover between now and the end of the year, but I want to focus today on two issues. One is the Children's Health Insurance Program, and the second is the so-called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the so-called DACA Program, and in particular the individuals affected by this policy, the Dreamers. I will start with that issue. The Dreamers, of course, are something on the order of 800,000 young people who were promised that if they came forward and made disclosures, their government would protect them. That is the basic promise that our government made. This is a significant moment in their lives and in the life of the Nation as to whether we are going to keep what I would argue is a sacred promise to 800,000 young people and in my home State of Pennsylvania, at last count, thousands, as many as 5,900, approximately. In this case, we are talking about this issue because a promise was made, and then in the transition from one administration to the other, a different approach was taken. In September, President Trump decided to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program. This announcement required those whose DACA waivers would expire within 6 months to submit a renewal application in just 1 month--not a lot of time to get that done. Unfortunately, many DACA recipients were unable to meet this short deadline, and others who managed to get their applications in time were still rejected due to postal delays--not because of something that young person did but due to postal delays. While the administration has said these individuals may be able to resubmit, many are immediately at risk of deportation. Just imagine that. In fact, it is impossible for me to imagine it, and maybe it is impossible for anyone in this building to imagine that you are an individual who came forward because of this program, because of a promise your government made to you that you would be protected if you came forward. You came forward after years of living in this country--many years wouldn't add up to a long life because these individuals are obviously very young. Some of them came when they were just a couple years old or a couple of months old, and they know no other country. In fact, one individual whom I met with around a big conference table of about 15 to 20 DACA recipients said to me in this meeting a couple of months ago, she said: The only country that I know, doesn't want us. That was her assessment of what the ending of this program should mean to her. So that is what they are at risk of. They are not just at risk of some theoretical consequence. They are literally at risk of deportation after living here all these years and not knowing any other country because of their circumstances. It is estimated that 12,000 DACA recipients have already lost their protection--12,000 young people--and that number will grow to some 20,000 by March. Why would our country break a promise to 12,000 individuals and then 20,000 and then potentially much, much higher numbers? So we can't wait one more day, in my judgment, to help these Dreamers. Dreamers across Pennsylvania and the Nation already are living in fear and feeling the consequences of this horrific decision. ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, has already picked up a young Dreamer during a routine traffic stop whose DACA waiver had expired. This Dreamer had been waiting to reapply for protection after his initial application was rejected due to--I will say it again-- postal delays. While the administration has said they would allow these applications that were rejected due to postal delays the chance to reapply, the administration has been silent on what these individuals should do in the interim. For many Dreamers, this means they must choose between risking deportation and continuing to work and provide for their children and their families, depending on the circumstance. These Dreamers have done everything right, and their applications were rejected, not due to any action they did not take, but they were rejected for other reasons--due to a failure of our government. Yet, now, they are paying the price. Risking ICE detention and deportation to countries within which they have never lived as adults is totally contrary to our values. Dreamers are young people who have lived in this country since they were children. They are law-abiding residents who have learned English, paid taxes, gone to school, secured jobs that support themselves and their families. This program has enabled almost 800,000 young people to grow and thrive in America. These impressive young people provide enormous contributions to our society, including paying an estimated $2 billion every year in State and local taxes. The economic loss to Pennsylvania is estimated to be in the hundreds of millions. To be exact, by one estimate, it is a $357.1 million loss to the State's GDP. How about the Nation overall? By one estimate, if this were to go forward and these young people were to be deported in the numbers some are talking about, it is a national number that is in the hundreds of billions of dollars--by one estimate, north of $400 billion. That is the impact. So we have to get this done one way or the other. It would be a terrible failure of our government; worse than that, it would be an insult to our country, and it would be breaking a sacred promise.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to spend a couple of minutes talking about the Dream Act and the so-called DACA issue. There are so many acronyms here in Washington. Sometimes we rely too much on them, but in this case, a lot of Americans know what we are talking about--the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. This policy was put in place in the prior administration. Then in September, in this administration, the President made an announcement to end the program, to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program. The President imposed, I would argue, an arbitrary deadline of March 5 of next year, which is looming now. Something on the order of 20,000 DACA recipients have already lost their protection from detention and deportation, and I believe that it is critical for Congress to act now to pass the bipartisan Dream Act. What are we talking about here? We are talking about young people who arrived in this country, in many cases, at very, very young ages--some of them babies, some of them young children at the time. When you hear their stories, you come away impressed that they have succeeded, that they have become part of the fabric of American life. In a meeting a couple of months ago--sitting in a conference room, around a long conference table with other DACA recipients, because of the looming deadline and the potential that she could lose the status she has now and be deported--one DACA recipient said to me: The only country I have ever known doesn't want me--or at least she was reflecting that the policy the administration had enunciated seemed to send a message to her that she was not wanted. This makes no sense at all on a number of fronts, and I will get to each of them in a moment, but I will start with the word ``promise.'' These young people were made a promise by our government. It was made by the President of the United States of America when he said: Come forward, and we will protect you because you have taken that affirmative step forward. That promise cannot be violated, in my judgment, by any President or, certainly, by inaction on the part of Congress. If this government is willing to break that promise to what most believe is something on the order of 800,000 young people who have lived in the United States since their childhoods and after our having allowed them to better contribute to their families and their communities, why would any government around the world, let alone our own people, believe any other promise that we would make? Would we have that moment, I would hope that we would be confident that a foreign government that happens to be an ally would be able to take our word for something--take the word of the President, take the word of a Federal official or a Member of Congress--when we make an assertion. We all remember the story in the context of the Cuban missile crisis, when an American official went to see President de Gaulle of France--an ally, a close ally, an ally for generations. In discussion with President de Gaulle of France, that envoy said: The President of the United States wants me to present evidence to you to prove that there are missiles in Cuba. As we were told, President de Gaulle said: There is no reason for you to show the surveillance pictures. If the President of the United States says there are missiles in Cuba, I believe him, and you don't need to prove it to me. Part of that was because, over the generations, leaders of our country had built up a kind of credibility, a believability, that was very important to our international relationships--in this case, having to do with the French people. Yet our government would break a promise to 800,000 young people-- law-abiding young people, young people who have succeeded, in many of whom our country has invested by way of their educations. They have been educated in our school districts--educated in grade school and in high school and in our institutions of higher education in some instances. We are going to break a promise to them? Why would anyone trust us around the world if we would break a promise to 800,000 young people? This is the responsibility not only of the administration but of both parties in both Houses because, if that promise is violated by inaction or action, then I think that we damage our credibility here at home, especially, but also around the world. We know that there are economic consequences to this action or inaction. By one estimate, when I consider just Pennsylvania, here are some of the numbers. In Pennsylvania, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program has allowed nearly 5,900 young people to come forward and to pass background checks to live and to work legally in this country. That was the promise. You come forward, and you allow a background check to proceed. You pass it, and you work legally in this country. What kind of impact would play out in Pennsylvania if those 5,900 young people were to be lost because DACA would have ended? The cost for our State would be, by one estimate, $357 million. The national number is extraordinarily high. For the 800,000 young people who have lived in the United States since their childhoods, if DACA ends, the national economy will lose more than $460 billion--that is billion with a ``b'' as opposed to the Pennsylvania number, which is in the millions--over the decade. So it would be, roughly, $46 billion or so every year for 10 years. Why would we do that? Why would anyone want that to happen--to have that kind of economic hit to the national economy? I think it is wrong just based upon its being a violation of a promise. It is a sacred obligation of any government, especially to the people who are living within the boundaries of the United States of America. That is offensive enough for me to speak out against action or inaction that would be against the interests of these young people. Even if you did not prioritize the violation of a sacred promise, you could also arrive at the conclusion that ending DACA would be a mistake for purely economic reasons if you were concerned about the national economy. These young people, known as Dreamers, as I said, have lived in this country since they were very young. They are law-abiding residents. They have learned English. They pay taxes and have gone to school. They have secured jobs to support themselves and their families. For many of these Dreamers, America is, indeed, the only home they have ever known. Here are a couple of examples, in this case, from Pennsylvania. Audrey Lopez, a Dreamer from Lancaster, PA, was brought to the United States from Peru when she was just 11 years old. Audrey spent most of her childhood in Pennsylvania, and her parents instilled in her the value of hard work and an education. Like so many Dreamers, Audrey Lopez only learned that she was undocumented when she started applying to college and learned that she did not have a Social Security number. Despite her not having access to financial aid, Audrey worked hard and graduated from Millersville University of Pennsylvania in 2012. After graduation, she took a job in public service at Church World Services in assisting refugees with resettlement. This past fall, Audrey accepted a nearly full scholarship to American University, here in Washington, where she will obtain a master's in international development. She has chosen that course of study, in part, due to fear of deportation. She is hoping to arm herself with the tools to make her country a better place. We should be supporting young, hard-working people like Audrey who want to work in the service of others and our Nation. Instead, there are people here in Washington who are threatening their futures--not only her future but our Nation's future--by making us less safe and damaging the economy. I say ``less safe'' if that is the way we treat law-abiding individuals in our country, people who have lived here their whole lives. They may not have been born here--they may not have a number-- but for all intents and purposes, they are Americans. They live in American communities and attend American schools. They have achieved things that we would hope every American would achieve, and they have worked hard. In some cases, they didn't realize they were any different from any other child until much later in life when they were told they might not have had a number or a special status that others around them might have had. In any case, in addition to being the wrong thing to do--violate a promise--and in addition to hurting our economy, if you end DACA, it will not be good for our security. Again, why would anyone believe that we could enter into a hard and fast security agreement or protect our own people if we would not be willing to protect people in our own country who have followed the law? This would be an insult and an outrage if it were hundreds of people, but we are talking about 800,000 who will be subject to losing their status and, ultimately, be deported because the U.S. Congress doesn't have the guts and doesn't have the integrity to protect them. So this is a test, a test of the U.S. Congress--both Houses--and it is a test for the administration as well. I hope they can pass this test, the test of whether we keep our promise or whether we lie to the people. That is what this is about. This is about basic integrity, and there is no in-between here. You either keep your promise or you don't. We will see what the administration does, we will see what the Congress does, and we will see whether people care about the economy. There is a lot of talk about growing the economy. How can we say we want to grow the economy, when you reject because of some ideology or some special interest--reject and compromise and damage the future of 800,000 people who live here? That is inexcusable and unforgiveable. I hope we see some moral courage over the next couple of weeks when it comes to these young people. Ending DACA is bad for our economy, it tears away the integrity of our government, and it is bad for our security. If this program is ended, we are less safe as a country, without a doubt. This is why Congress must move immediately to pass the bipartisan Dream Act. It is a bill I was proud to vote for and move forward in 2007 and 2010. The bill would allow Dreamers to become permanent residents if they meet the very stringent qualifications outlined in the bill. This means giving those 5,900 Pennsylvanians who have been granted DACA status some security and a future they can count on. This is why we can say America is a great country, when we keep our promises, when we protect our own folks in our communities, especially these individuals who work very hard. So this is a basic test. I hope our government will meet it. I hope the administration will work with us to make sure we can finally pass into law a measure that will remove this uncertainty and remove the fear people live with. Let me conclude with one observation. I was in a meeting a couple of weeks ago with a young woman who said: The only country I have ever known doesn't seem to want me. Another young woman in the same meeting said her whole goal in life was pretty simple. She wanted to be a nurse. She said she wanted to heal people. She had done well in school, had followed all the rules, and now she may be in trouble, subject to deportation down the road, if somehow this DACA policy isn't upheld, if our promise is violated, our sacred promise to 800,000 people. This young woman was telling a room full of people about this goal she had, this aspiration to be a nurse, and when she said, ``All I want to do is heal people,'' she became very upset. Another young woman who had achieved in school and had done well was a volunteer firefighter in Pennsylvania. She worries about it as well. Story after story, example after example of young people who have worked very hard their whole lives, have achieved in school, their friends are all around them, and their families are a part of these communities. Is our government going to violate a promise to them? Why would anyone believe our government after that on any promise if it violates a promise that fundamental? Why would anyone trust the U.S. Congress if these young people aren't protected? I hope Congress will meet this test, support the Dream Act, and get it done. If we get that done, then we can say we are a government people should trust. If you don't get this done, it is a lot more difficult to make the case that our word is good here at home and that it is good internationally. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I want to say to the senior Senator from Oregon, as the ranking member of the committee, he will remember, as I do, that in the course of that so-called markup, which is a fancy Washington word for having some debates and offering amendments, there was no hearing--no hearing for days, and there has still been no hearing on the Senate bill passed out of the Finance Committee and the new version of the bill that we will see right now. So, in the course of that discussion, there were no hearings. It would have been helpful to us and to the American people if we had the major organizations come in before the Finance Committee and give us testimony about the impact on children--organizations that have spent decades advocating on behalf of children, doing public policy research as it relates to children, but we never heard that because there were no hearings, not a single hearing on the bill. There was discussion, and there were questions for some tax policy experts, but nothing in the way of hearings that could probe very deeply on what happens to kids. I think the American people would like to know more about what will happen with the child tax credit, for example. There has been a lot of talk on the Republican side about the child tax credit; they are allegedly making it better. Well, the Senate Republican plan does increase the maximum tax credit for children from $1,000 to $2,000 per child. That sounds pretty good so far, right--$1,000 to $2,000. But because the bill limits refundability, a mom working full-time at minimum wage will see only an additional $75 in the child tax credit, while a married couple earning $500,000 would become newly eligible for the maximum $2,000-per-child credit. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 10 million children--10 million--live in families who would get $6.25 or less per month in the additional child tax credit in this bill. So there is not much improvement in the child tax credit on maybe the only tax reform bill that this body will consider for the next 30 years. Let's say it is only 10 years. Wouldn't it be nice to have some testimony from experts across this country who live and breathe the work of being advocates for children, who study every bill to determine whether it impacts on children. Wouldn't it be nice to have their testimony maybe on the child tax credit, maybe just on the child and dependent care tax credit, which is the only tax provision in law right now that helps people pay for childcare. Ask any family: What is your No. 1 concern, other than making ends meet and maybe paying for higher education? Other than a few priorities like that, their No. 1 concern is how to pay for childcare, but there is no testimony on that issue that relates to the bill. There is no testimony at all because there were no hearings on the bill. How can you have a child impact statement, how can you even generalize about it without a hearing? Of course, we need more than generalizations. We need specifics. So I think we have to ask those questions and be focused on children in a very specific way. Here is the last thing I will say. This opportunity to come together in a bipartisan fashion, which has not happened in this case--but we have the opportunity, and the majority could have taken a different path. They could have said to us months ago: Let's have a bipartisan process. Let's not move to a pathway that requires only 51 votes. Let's have a real bipartisan process on tax reform as they did in the mid- 1980s, resulting in the 1986 bill. They could have said: Do you know what? We have a bipartisan concern about children. We like the child tax credit. We like the child independent care tax credit. We like the earned-income tax credit. All of those are good policies. We want to make them better. We want to have a bipartisan effort to infuse all of those policies with even more funding, more help to make them more robust for our children, but that never happened. Once again, because of what the majority did, the pathway they selected to passing their bill with only Republican votes--and that was their choice--we will have a tax bill that will not have a child impact statement, will not have hearings about the impact on children and families, will not have any of that. Once again, we will prove that Washington, DC, never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity, especially as it relates to children and families. That is particularly insulting to the American people and regrettable because we have a moment here where we are trying to do tax reform and because it is not bipartisan, because there were no hearings on the bill, the impact on children will never ever be fully assessed. That is not just a tragedy, but that is a real insult to our families and to our children. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CASEY. That is just one brief assessment of the impact of this legislation on children, but I think that should be a question we ask of every major piece of legislation.

Mr. CASEY. Yes.

Mr. CASEY. Then you take the category of $75,000 to $100,000, and almost 17 percent of Americans in that income category will see a tax cut of less than $9 a month. In the grand total between $50,000 and $100,000, 7.7 million Americans will either see a tax increase or a tax cut of $100 or less. I don't call that tax cuts for the middle class. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Rachel McKinnon of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of the 115th Congress.