Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

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

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2893.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to talk about an amendment that deals with a fundamental issue for working families, and that is the cost childcare. By way of example, the weekly cost of childcare in Pennsylvania, roughly over the last 30 years, has gone up by 70 percent. In a State like ours that can mean over $10,600 per infant per family. We want to make sure this credit is fully available to working families. We want to increase the maximum amount to $3,000. Finally, we want to make sure it is fully refundable. This amendment is paid for by offsets. I thank Senator Baldwin for the great work she did with us on this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Murray and Reed of Rhode Island be added as cosponsors of this amendment.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the recent terrorist attacks around the world--including, of course, the horror of Paris--but also to talk about what undergirds that, and that is the threat posed by ISIS. Some use the acronym ISIL; Daesh is another phrase that has been used to describe this vicious terrorist group. But I think we need to--at the same time as we are trying to prevent terrorist attacks--focus on the broader policy to destroy ISIS. We know it has been 4\1/2\ years since the people of Syria began protesting against the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad. As we also know, that conflict escalated rapidly and was coupled with a dysfunctional and sectarian government in Iraq, especially starting from the capital of Baghdad. The fighting and unrest created space for extremism to grow and to take root. About 1\1/2\ years ago, we saw the emergence of the group we now know as ISIS. This group poses a very serious threat to our national security as well as to the security of many parts of the world. There is no question that ISIS is a clear threat to the security of our partners in the region and--as we know most horrifically, in the last few days--in Europe. They also have a desire to attack the U.S. homeland. We know that. We have to remember that this is a group that originated as an Al Qaeda offshoot. They share the same motivations or at least similar motivations, and they, of course, share the same brutality, if not worse. In recent weeks, ISIS has claimed responsibility for horrific attacks outside of Syria and Iraq. They claim responsibility for the bombing of a Russian airliner that went down over Egypt in the Sinai, killing all of its passengers--Russian passengers. ISIS suicide bombers attacked a market in Beirut, Lebanon, last week, just before Paris. Then, of course, came Friday night, the 13th. This was, as has been reported, a coordinated, ruthless, and despicable attack in Paris that killed 129 innocent civilians. So what this horror--and we could list other examples, but these most recent events remind us--what this horror reminds us, is what our job is in Congress and across our country, but especially when it comes to the role of the U.S. Federal Government. We have at least two responsibilities in this area. No. 1 is to prevent terrorists from coming into the United States of America; and second, but related, is to destroy ISIS, without a doubt. To do both of these will continue to be difficult and challenging. Anyone who comes up with a simple proposal or a commentary that makes it seem simple really doesn't know what they are talking about, really doesn't understand the complexity of this. I even doubt their commitment to it when they give one-line answers to difficult challenging problems. Last year, I was blessed, in June of 2014, to have the chance to go to Normandy. Senator Leahy, the senior Senator from Vermont, organized a visit to Normandy on the 70th anniversary of D-day. For someone representing any State--in my case representing the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, from where so many Pennsylvanians and, of course, so many Americans died on the beaches of Normandy or died within days of that battle--it was deeply moving to be in Normandy, to listen to presentations from those who had lived through the horror of Normandy and those who were coming back to celebrate the fact that they had served and were alive after these 70 years. We were able to see the beaches. We saw the cemetery. I walked down to the cemetery, and the first grave I happened to look at was one of a Pennsylvania soldier, just fortuitously when I was looking at the first marker, the first grave. One of the themes of that visit, of course, was France, the people of France thanking the United States, thanking allies and expressing gratitude in so many different ways, in heartfelt ways, at the leadership level, from President Hollande, all the way down. And one of the best images of that gratitude was displayed in this picture. I will put it up on the easel. This is an enlarged version of what was on a brochure. You can see it, and it is written in two languages, of course. The translation is ``70th Anniversary of the Liberation of France,'' in English and French, and the date--June 6, 2014, commemorating the 70th anniversary. What you may not be able to make out from a distance is the image. It is, of course, a beach, and it is the image of a little girl. She has an orange plastic pail and a green plastic shovel--an image we all understand--a child going on to the beach to play in the sand. She is in a yellow dress, with her back towards us, and she is moving towards the beach. What is so moving about this expression of gratitude by the people of France is that the shadow that emanates from that little girl is not her shadow. Rather, it is the shadow of an American GI, or what I believe to be an American GI, and I am not sure anyone could contest that. It is a profound and very moving and very powerful expression of gratitude that all of us can understand: that this little girl would not be able to be on that beach to play in freedom--or any of the other places that were under attack during World War II--were it not for the bravery of American soldiers, the commitment of the American people, and the work that was done to undergird that effort by the allies against the axis powers. It is a very powerful reminder of the contribution of that soldier depicted by the shadow and the freedom that little girl can enjoy because of that sacrifice--a profound sacrifice, a sacrifice you cannot even describe if you had volumes of books to write about it. I was moved because it was a wonderful expression of gratitude to the people of the United States by the French people. I was thinking about that in the aftermath of this horror. Folks all over the United States and around the world were expressing solidarity with the people of Paris and the people of France, and it gave us the chance to try to give back to them in the aftermath of their tragedy, a year or so after they had expressed gratitude to us. This relationship between our two countries is very strong and goes back to the beginnings of our Republic, even back to the days of the Revolution. That image of that little girl probably couldn't be expressed or presented were it not for what happened in World War II and what happened on the beaches of Normandy. Again, we were able to achieve that result by working with allies the world over. It would not have been possible were it not for the work of people around the country sacrificing--the soldiers and their families, the factories, the spouses who worked in the factories while soldiers were overseas. There was a lot of good work done then by the Congress to support the war effort. We have to figure out a way here to get back to that kind of sacrifice, that kind of commitment. There was a reminder recently of what a Member of this body said around that time, about 1945. Senator Arthur Vandenberg from the State of Michigan delivered a seminal speech in January 1945 on this floor. Senator Vandenberg was a Republican, an avowed isolationist and a strong opponent of President Roosevelt. But on that day he said: We cannot drift to victory. We must have maximum united effort on all fronts. . . . and we must deserve the continued united effort of our own people. It is Vandenberg's example of setting aside partisan politics for the good of our Nation that gives us this expression: Politics stops at the water's edge. We have all heard that expression. If we haven't, we should educate ourselves, and if we have heard it, we should remind ourselves of it. But I am afraid when we debate foreign policy and security policy, there is often a dismissal of that basic lesson he taught us. I am afraid we have lost sight of his legacy that politics must stop at the water's edge when it comes to our security, whether that is the fight against terrorism itself or whether that is a military campaign against ISIS. This fight against ISIS demands our attention, but it also demands our unity. Unity is not just a nice expression, something we should hope for. The challenge demands it. If we are not unified, it is going to be very difficult to defeat ISIS or any other threat, frankly. We must not do oversight by sound bite when it comes to this policy. We can engage, as some have done--not everyone but enough to be concerned in both Houses of Congress--in categorical condemnation of the President's policy on virtually everything in the international arena. That doesn't move the ball down the field. It also doesn't absolve the President of accepting and incorporating critiques of the policy-- specific critiques of what we should be doing or are not doing or might want to consider. But categorical condemnation doesn't help anyone. It doesn't solve the problem. It just divides people and prevents us from having that essential unity to make sure the strategy works. I have been critical of a number of the President's policies on the international stage. I haven't always agreed with him. But if one is going to disagree with the President or disagree with a colleague about something as important as a strategy to defeat what most people believe is the biggest threat to the civilized world, you should be very specific. Unity demands that you be specific. We don't have time for just words and finger pointing. We need a bipartisan approach to this challenge. So we do need bipartisanship. We need sober and serious deliberation, and we also need spirited debate. I am not advocating that someone doesn't criticize the policy or engage in a very heated exchange with someone who has a different point of view. But it has to be a debate, and it has to be an engagement that yields a result. And the result is a policy and a strategy that is going to be effective and that has some degree of substantial unity. A lot of our allies look at the squabbles here in Washington and wonder how serious we are about this fight. If all we do is just comment and answer reporters' questions, maybe go to a hearing once in a while, that is OK, but this policy is going to take a lot more than that. Some of our allies look at our failure to unite behind a common strategy and wonder whether the United States will be an enduring partner for as long as it takes to eliminate ISIS from the planet--not just to defeat them on the battlefield but to destroy them. A lot of these allies, I am afraid, are wishing for more Senator Vandenbergs or at least more Vandenberg-Roosevelt days, when someone could disagree almost violently about domestic policy or even an aspect of our security, but at some point you came together and said: We are going to move forward with this strategy and work together. In November of last year, the President outlined a multipart strategy to address the threat posed by ISIS. He spoke about the airstrike campaign in Iraq and Syria, which now involves 11 countries and has yielded more than 8,000 airstrikes as of last week. Those strikes have taken out ISIS leaders. They have taken out financiers, bomb makers, foreign fighters and foreign fighter recruiters. Of course, most recently--just last week, just before the horrific news about Paris--we were told the man responsible for the beheadings of ISIS hostages had, in fact, been killed. That was a good result for the civilized world. We also heard from the President at that time--and since that time--of a 60-plus nation coalition. Most recently, there have been hits on the tanker trucks bringing oil out of ISIS-held areas for sale on the black market, hits on communications equipment or weapons caches, and they have helped protect opposition fighters who cleared the way for significant territorial gains, especially by the Kurdish Peshmerga forces--great fighters in this battle. Reports now indicate that ISIS territorial holdings in Iraq and Syria have been diminished by as much as 25 percent in roughly the last year. CENTCOM's assessment--this isn't an assessment by a politician; this is CENTCOM--indicates that the refinery in the city of Tikrit has been largely retaken, as has been the city of Sinjar and a main road connecting ISIS strongholds in Raqqa and Mosul. These airstrikes are denying ISIS safe haven and significantly hindering their ability to move freely around areas where they operate. So what have we heard over and over? Airstrikes alone will not win this. I agree with that. I get that. But airstrikes are moving the ball down the field in the sense that they are giving the opportunity to fighters on the ground and helping in other aspects of the strategy. So we have to continue the airstrikes. I hope people around here don't start saying: Well, airstrikes alone don't do the job; so let's stop the airstrikes. No, we have to continue them and, if necessary, for years--many years. But this strategy is not just a military strategy. The President also outlined an effort to counter the financial networks that support ISIS, which gets funding from multiple sources. We know them: illicit oil sales, trafficking in antiquities and other goods, extortion of the local communities, and outside donations. The Department of Defense is targeting financiers for kinetic strikes, a fancy way of saying you are going to be taken out if you are a financier. Treasury has sanctioned a number of senior ISIS leaders and facilitators, cutting off access to the U.S. financial system. The strategy also includes measures to address foreign fighter recruitment and travel. We are also working to expose ISIS's hypocritical propaganda which many Muslim leaders around the world have said is inconsistent with their religious values. It is clear there can be no enduring defeat of ISIS without remedies for the governance issues which created this space for extremism to fester. In Iraq we are working to create an inclusive government that has a capability to counter ISIS. In Syria we need a negotiated political solution that ensures Bashar al-Assad--whose continued presence in Damascus has been a recruiting windfall for ISIS--has no role in the future of Syria and has to go. I have said that many times. I appreciate the fact that Secretary Kerry and his team have recognized these underlying problems and have worked to address them. So while the administration has taken important steps, we know it is not enough. We know that. Recent events require an intensification of our efforts. I have critiqued this Syria policy for years and will continue to press the administration to do more on ISIS financing. We have to make sure ISIS can't pay their people's salaries. We have to cut off their financing so they can't operate, so they can't pay for propaganda, so they can't buy weapons, so they can't buy ammunition, and so they can't make the horrific IEDs that kill innocent civilians and soldiers. So we must continue this debate as Members of the Senate with the administration. Part of making sure we get the financing challenge in the right place is to confirm Mr. Adam Szubin, who would play a substantial determinative role in the Treasury Department. So what do we do? It has been very difficult to get people focused on a bipartisan strategy. There is a lot more we can do. I believe the establishment of a bipartisan study group, comprised of experts and former government officials from both sides of the aisle, will be useful at this juncture. This group should be authorized by Congress, appropriated a modest amount of money for supporting its work, similar to the Iraq Study Group formed in 2006. The group should evaluate the nature of the ISIS threat as well as the conditions in Iraq and Syria that have allowed it to grow and evolve, and it should evaluate the military and nonmilitary options available to the United States to address this threat and the underlying conflicts and governance issues. There is a lot this group could do and contribute to what would be a stronger, bipartisan, unified policy. There are many outside experts whose careers of service in the Middle East, and civilian, military, and intelligence roles, offer a wealth of expertise. This group could conduct its work over a 6- to 9-month period and report back to Congress with its findings. If they could do it faster, we would certainly authorize and encourage them. Initiating a bipartisan study doesn't mean we should press pause on our current efforts. Members of Congress need to continue supporting our soldiers, bringing the fight to ISIS with intensity and focus. We need to continue our efforts to reach a negotiated political transition in Syria and to encourage inclusivity and good governance in Iraq. If a Sunni soldier doesn't feel a part of his own government, they have to support a unifying government. We need to continue to press the growing humanitarian crisis emanating from Iraq and Syria, but I believe our efforts to defeat ISIS and our long-term goal of countering violent extremism would benefit from a serious bipartisan expert study group. In closing, I will once again invoke the words of Senator Vandenberg. In the speech he gave in the 1940s, he said: ``Here in the Senate we do not have perpetual agreement between the two sides of the aisle, but we have never failed to have basic unity when crisis calls.'' ``We have never failed to have basic unity when crisis calls.'' Crisis has called, right now. We know that. The crisis is ISIS and terrorism. We have to destroy ISIS and prevent terrorism from coming to our shores. We don't have time for politics. We don't have time for people talking in sound bites and pretending they are doing oversight. We need bipartisan work that will bring people together on a unified strategy. I urge my colleagues to reflect on the spirit of Vandenberg's seminal speech and to find a unified path forward that supports our long-standing partners and protects the security of this great Nation. I will conclude with a picture. This is a picture of a little girl who can walk on a beach in freedom because of the bravery and sacrifice of our soldiers in World War II. If we are worthy--worthy of that sacrifice--we had better get our act together, come together--both parties--and make sure we have a bipartisan policy. We don't have time for finger-pointing. We have to come together and make sure we do all we can to have a sound, serious, bipartisan effort against ISIS and against terrorists. I believe that is a mission worthy of a great nation and certainly worthy of the sacrifice of the people who are on the battlefield right now--our soldiers, our fighters, as well as soldiers from around the world--and certainly worthy of the sacrifice that led to the beautiful expression of gratitude that the French people gave us just last year. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to talk about a set of issues we don't, frankly, spend enough time on that relate to our children. I have often said--and I think it is true throughout this Chamber when we talk about these issues--that we come to this because we are concerned about the future of this country when we talk about what happens to our children. I have always believed--and I think this is a prevailing point of view here in this Chamber and across the country--that every child is born with a light inside them, the light of the full measure of their potential. Some children don't need a lot of help along the way. They are born into circumstances or into families or born to parents or there are other factors that give them an advantage. They have a lot of ability, and they do not need much in the way of intervention from any part of our society, including the government. Some children are born with a bright light, but it may not burn as brightly or shine as brightly as some other kids, and they need a little extra help. Some of those kids, if they get help when they are very young, can thrive and succeed and grow without any further help or assistance. If we are serious about growing the economy, if we are serious about creating jobs and creating the kind of opportunity that we say we are concerned about and that we say is part of the fabric of being an American, then we have to be concerned about what happens to our kids. A lot of what I will talk about today can be summarized in maybe one line: As kids learn more now, they are going to earn more later. We know all the data shows that. The child who has access to early learning will earn more later in life. It also is essential that they have access to quality health care and the kind of security that comes when you have enough to eat--food security. If we want our children to learn more now and earn more later, we have to make the right investments. Unfortunately, that child or any child won't be able to learn more now and therefore earn more later if they live a life of poverty. Maybe some will get through, but that is very difficult. If we don't take action against child poverty, we have already erected barriers in their path. Today, as of 2014, the latest numbers for child poverty in the United States are 21.1 percent. That number is up substantially since the great recession--a couple of percentage points--and therefore there are millions more children living in poverty. In Pennsylvania, it is only a little lower--19.4 percent. No one here would try to make the case that is acceptable, that 21 percent of children living in poverty is something we can accept. We should all be not only outraged by it but take action and have a sense of urgency to combat it. There are a couple of things we can do. First of all, we have to know what is happening to children on a broad range of topics. That is why we have to rely upon public policy expertise. There is a whole group of folks out there in organizations. I am holding in my hand just one example. You can't see it from a distance, but this is a kind of one- page summary by the Annie E. Casey Foundation--no relation to me but a great foundation that has tracked child well-being for years. They have four categories: economic well-being, education, health, and the fourth category is family and community. If you could see this up close, you would notice some categories. There are 16 altogether, with 4 indicators in 4 categories. If you look at the orange, wherever you see orange, that means the numbers are getting worse for children. If you see green, that means we are doing better. So it is a mixed report, with some numbers getting better over the last 5 years or 7 years or time increments such as that. But what has gotten worse since the great recession is that the number of children living in poverty has gone up. The number of children whose parents lack secure employment has gone up. Unfortunately, two other indicators of poverty--children in single- parent families is up, meaning the number has worsened, and children living in high-poverty areas is worse. I won't go into those numbers today, but that is just an indication that childhood poverty has been a challenge for a long time. It got a lot worse after the great recession, when our economy began to collapse and folks across the country paid the price, and a lot of children have paid the price. So what do we do about it? One thing we do is to begin to see that at long last we can't just talk about reducing child poverty. We can't just nibble around the edges or hope a program here or a program there will help. We have to have a strategy. In order to have a strategy, we have to have a goal, and the goal ought to be that we reduce child poverty and take the same approach, frankly, the United Kingdom took a couple of years ago. I will walk through some of the background, but Senator Baldwin and Senator Brown and I introduced a bill just last week--the Child Poverty Reduction Act--to establish that kind of a target to reduce child poverty. Under the legislation, child poverty would be cut in half in 10 years. So child poverty would be cut in half in a decade. The second goal would be to eliminate child poverty in 20 years. Deep poverty would be eliminated in 10 years--meaning the worst kind of poverty for our children and for our families. To meet these goals, we would give an assignment to an interagency working group to reduce child poverty, to develop a plan, and include recommendations to improve coordination and efficiency of existing programs and initiatives, because there are a lot of them--and we can get to those in a moment--along with recommendations for new legislation, new strategies, and new approaches to focus on child poverty. Here is what happened in the United Kingdom. In 1999, the UK established a national child poverty target and measured in U.S. terms the UK's child poverty target, and the policy changes made in conjunction with that effort reduced Britain's child poverty rate by 50 percent in the first 10 years--a significant achievement. In comparison, between 2000 and 2013--a little more than a decade--in the United States, the child poverty rate increased by over 20 percent. So roughly in the same time period, as our poverty rate was going up for kids, the UK's poverty rate for children was going down. One of the reasons for that--not the only reason--is they set a target, and both sides came together--the labor party, the conservatives--and the country made it a goal. We haven't done that yet, and we need to focus on that kind of a goal. So one thing we need to do is to focus on a goal and have legislation to enact part of the strategy. Then, of course, we can't just stop there. We can't just assume having a target and working toward it is enough. One of the most powerful examples in my home State of Pennsylvania over the last couple of years of what it means to live in poverty--in this case, moms who were willing to tell their stories--is the effort undertaken by Witnesses to Hunger. That is what this photograph depicts--a child who was photographed by her mother. Other mothers were willing to take pictures of their children to tell the world about their own circumstances and to give us living proof of what it means to live in poverty, what it means to be a child living in poverty. That is Witnesses to Hunger. This all started at Drexel University, where they gave cameras to a group of moms who decided to open up their own lives, courageously and generously, and to tell us more about these challenges. The first picture after that is a picture of a young woman by the name of Monique who is on her way to her local WIC office--the Women, Infants, and Children Program--the office in this part of Philadelphia. Monique says: ``I love WIC because it supports me by helping me nurse my baby.'' That is a picture of her and her baby. The next picture is a picture of a group of classmates, and the mom's name is Shearine. Shearine's daughter joins her classmates in this photo. Here is what Shearine says about her circumstances and what she hopes for the future: My daughter and her classmates are symbols of change. They have hope for a brighter future and faith that the adults in their lives will work together to make a change. We must do whatever it takes so that they can grow up and be strong, educated adults. I think Shearine gave us all an assignment, not just speaking to herself. I think she gave us all an assignment that we have to make sure we are taking the steps necessary and essential to do all we can to give that bright future and to validate the faith those children have in us, whether we are going to meet our obligations to help those children--every single one of those children in that class picture. Finally, the last picture is of a young boy giving his mother Gale a great smile. In this photo, Gale captures her son's happiness as he holds up nutritious bananas. It is good to have that in the picture. When we talk about child poverty and hunger, it is not just some public policy issue, some issue for a think tank to analyze. Child poverty is depicted in some of these pictures, but it is also in our newspapers every day of the week and in our midst. I hope more of us will be summoned by our conscience to do something constructively about this issue. We have a lot to do in the next couple of months. We have child nutrition reauthorization, which is a great opportunity for us to, at long last, begin to take steps in the right direction. The Women, Infants, and Children Program I mentioned before is one of those. One reason I am so concerned about where we are in the WIC Program is that some children literally are caught in a nutrition gap. Because they are age 5, they may be caught in a gap where they are not getting school meals and they are not getting nutrition any other way. Some children can experience this nutrition gap almost 12 months, almost a year being caught because they turned 5. The time in this nutrition gap is a time when they are neither supported by WIC nor supported by a school meals program. We had the privilege recently of talking to a constituent from Western Pennsylvania. Her son is currently 4 years old. He will be enrolled in kindergarten in the fall of 2016. When he enrolls in school, he will get healthy meals, but in the next month when he turns 5, he will be cut off from the opportunity to benefit from the WIC Program. This child loves yogurt, fruit and vegetables and whole grains provided by the WIC Program, but he will not benefit from that because of this glitch in the law. So I propose a new bill, the Wise Investment in our Children Act, the WIC Act, to close the nutrition gap by allowing States to increase the age limit for WIC to age 6. We also have to be concerned, at the same time focusing on making changes to the WIC Program, to focus on another support for our children and families, the Child and Adult Care Food Program, so-called CACFB, as a quality source of nutrition. For many children, the meals they eat in childcare programs are the most nutritious meals they will eat all week. In other words, absent the childcare setting, they will likely not have a nutritious meal in the course of a week. As working families shuttle between home, childcare, and work, little time remains for food shopping, healthy meal planning or sitting down to eat healthy meals. The Child and Adult Care Food Program provides healthy, nutritious meals to more than 3 million children each day who are either in Head Start, Early Head Start or childcare programs in both centers and family childcare homes. I introduced this bill as well to focus, improve, and strengthen this program. The Child and Adult Care Improvement Act would enhance several aspects of this program, including allowing childcare centers and homes the option of serving a third meal for children who are in care for 8 or more hours a day. We have a lot to do, but we cannot get to the goal of reducing child poverty by 50 percent or reducing poverty overall in the near term in the next decade, unless we have a strategy, set a goal, and then begin to strengthen what works and improve the existing programs--whether it is WIC, the Child and Adult Care Food Program, the SNAP program--what used to be called food stamps. Whatever the program is, we have to strengthen and invest in it. We can't talk about all those lofty terms--like ``GDP growth, job growth, and growing economy'' and all the wonderful things that get discussed in this Chamber--without a strategy for our kids. We have a way to go, but I believe this commitment to our children is not just the right thing to do and it is not just something we ought to focus on as something consistent with what our conscience tells us, but it is in fact a great economic strategy for the country. If kids learn more now, they are going to earn more later. They can't learn more now if they don't have access to early learning, if they don't have access to healthy, nutritious foods, if they don't have access to quality health care, and if we don't protect them from people who would do them harm. If we do at least four of those things well--if we have early learning opportunities, opportunities to invest in food security strategies so they get healthy, nutritious foods, and we make sure they have quality health care in addition to early learning, we can move forward in a direction that gets us to the goal of making sure every child in this country has an opportunity to grow and to learn and to move in the future together. We can't do that if all we do in Washington is use phrases like ``job creation'' and ``economic growth'' without a strategy to get our kids there. We should make sure every child in this country has the same opportunity to learn and to grow. They can't do that if we as the adults don't give them that opportunity. So as we look at some of the real lives depicted in these photographs, I think Shearine gave us a very powerful message today, where she said: ``They,'' meaning the children in the picture of the classroom--``They have hope for a brighter future and faith that the adults in their lives will work together to make change.'' Shearine is right. She has given me an assignment, she has given 99 other Senators an assignment, and a lot of other adults across the country. I believe this is a mission worthy of a great nation, just like every other major undertaking we have confronted and dealt with over many generations of greatness in our country. When we talk about American exceptionalism and what it means to be an American, part of being an American is making sure every child has the same opportunity to learn and to grow. We can do this. We can do it in a bipartisan fashion. If the United Kingdom can reduce child poverty, the United States can do the same. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the conflict in Syria, and in particular what is happening over the next couple of days and weeks. We know that in the last 4 years, starting in 2011, this conflict has resulted in the deaths of a quarter of a million Syrians. More than 4 million Syrians have fled and registered as refugees in neighboring countries. We are told that 7.6 million Syrian are displaced from their homes within Syria itself. So when you combine those who have fled the country because of the violence and combine that with the number of folks displaced in the country, you have about half the population of Syria. If we had the equivalent number here in the United States--of over 300 million people--that would be something on the order of 150 million Americans displaced from their homes. We cannot even imagine the scale of that suffering. At the center of this horror, this horrific war and humanitarian catastrophe, sits Bashar al-Assad, the dictator, who in the estimation of many experts and world leaders, and this is my opinion as well, has lost all legitimacy as the leader of Syria. A conflict that began with peaceful protests by Syrian young people for change quickly gave way to fighting on the streets of Homs, Daraa, and Aleppo. Assad's security forces have attempted to quash dissent with brutal beatings, imprisonment, starvation, use of chemical weapons, and wholesale destruction from indiscriminate barrel bombs, which, by the way, is a violation of international law. These actions prove to be a recruiting windfall for extremists and terrorist groups like ISIS, which now operate along many major transportation routes and cities in parts of Syria. The Institute for the Study of War just this week assessed that ISIS is now challenging the Assad regime for control of the supply line to Aleppo, expanding their reach westward. As I have said before and some others have said--it is what I will continue to maintain--the conflict in Syria and the international effort to degrade and ultimately defeat ISIS are inextricably linked. We cannot expect to bring about a lasting defeat of ISIS without bringing about a political transition in Syria. The atrocities perpetrated by these two evils, one the Assad regime and also ISIS-- these atrocities are too numerous to catalog today. Neither entity offers a stable, secure, and prosperous future for Syria. Several times the United States has participated in international negotiations with an eye toward ending this horror and paving the road toward a third choice for Syria. That is what this would be, a real political transition featuring inclusiveness, rule of law, and the primacy of citizenship over sect, ethnicity, and other divisive categories. These conversations have yet to bear fruit, mostly because the regime in Iran and the Russians continue to offer a lifeline to the murderous Assad, but we must keep trying. We must keep trying. One look at the images of the destruction in Aleppo or the faces of Syrians fleeing to Europe for a better life reminds us of the human costs of inaction. It is because of this that the Iranian and Russian escalation in recent weeks is so outrageous. These countries look at Syria as a ground line of communication to Hezbollah or a friendly host for a warm-water naval outpost. They turn a blind eye to the suffering of ordinary men, women, and children in an effort to exert their international influence. Russia's warplanes have struck in areas where the Syrian opposition, not ISIS, operates. Their strikes appear indiscriminate and have killed many civilians. Now, in the case of Iran, the recent visit of a designated terrorist and IRGC commander, Qasem Soleimani--his movement to Syria indicates that Iran and its proxies like Hezbollah are still central elements of this fight. I am on the floor today as leaders from major countries meet in Vienna. Yesterday in a speech at Carnegie Endowment, Secretary Kerry described his diplomatic task as ``charting a course out of hell.'' That is how he described the way out through a political resolution in Syria. Although news reports indicate that these talks will not deal directly with the question of Bashar al-Assad, our policy must remain firm. Assad has no place--no place in Syria's future. No bombing campaigns, no promise of sham elections should change that. I commend the work Secretary Kerry is doing. I commend him for the speech he gave yesterday. One month ago I wrote to him calling for greater U.S. leadership on at least three tracks: political, multilateral, and humanitarian. In the response to my letter, the State Department emphasized, ``The only way to sustainably end the suffering of the Syrian people is through a genuine political solution consistent with the Geneva principles.'' I appreciate and agree with this commitment. However, I am concerned that the Governments of Syria, Iran, and Russia remain in clear violation of multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions, including flouting arms control restrictions and travel sanctions. These regimes do not appear to be ready for dialogue consistent with the Geneva principles. Secretary Kerry said during his Carnegie speech yesterday that the United States and Russia have many points of common ground on Syria. However, the areas of divergence are stark. We know there is no military solution to this conflict. Only a political settlement can heal the deep wounds across Syria. We must continually assert that no political solution can include a role for Bashar al-Assad. For a ruler who indiscriminately barrel bombs children over and over again, presides over the death of over one-quarter of a million civilians, there must be no soft political landing. We have said over and over again--and I will continue to say it--that Assad must go. It is important our negotiators in Vienna insist that these talks are a vehicle to effectuate the removal of Assad, not continue his brutal rule. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the same subject that my colleague from Delaware just raised and so many others before him. It is bipartisan. This loan program, which we have had the luxury, I guess, all these years of relying upon, has allowed us to say that as a country we value higher education. We value that for no matter what family a person is from or what level of income. As I have often said, we believe not only in the context of early learning, when someone is at the beginning of their learning years, but much later when they are in the years of higher education, that they can learn more now and earn more later. That linkage, that direct nexus between learning and earning, is a substantial factor in whether someone can have a good job and a career and success in their life. However, for a lot of folks, the cost of college, as so many have outlined today, becomes an impossible barrier over which they cannot climb, especially if they are low income. All they are asking for is a fair shot--a fair shot at learning, a fair shot at going to an institution of higher education. We know this program has meant so much not only to folks across the country, but when we look State by State and examine the number of students, the number of families who are affected now, it is extraordinary, whether we are talking about the Presiding Officer's home State of Colorado or Senator Coons and his constituents in Delaware or Connecticut or Wisconsin or Ohio. Wherever we are, we can see the numbers. In Pennsylvania, 40,000 students today are beneficiaries of the Perkins Loan Program. We are told as well that this isn't just a program that affects all different income levels; this is a program which is designed and has benefited those who most need it. We are told that one-quarter of recipients are from families with incomes of less than $30,000. The maximum loan amount per student is $5,500. If someone is going to a school where it costs $45,000 or $50,000, that may not seem like a lot, but for a lot of students who are at institutions that are not so high in cost, that is a big number--or a fraction of that number is a big number. If you are going to graduate school, you can get up to $8,000 from the Perkins Loan Program. It is a 10-year repayment period. As the Senator from Ohio pointed out, it is a revolving fund. So as one student is paying their Perkins loan back over 10 years, another student is benefiting from that revolving fund. We have all had individuals in our States--I have talked a couple of times about Nikki Ezzolo. Nikki is a recent graduate of Edinboro University. She had a long and difficult pathway through her higher education years. She is a single mom. She was in school and then out of school. When she finally got through school and had the benefit of a Perkins loan, among other things, she said the following in talking about her own circumstances as a single mom: I am proud to be a college grad and my daughter is proud of me too. I am so grateful for getting a Perkins loan to help me. I know that I wouldn't be where I am right now-- Meaning with a job after graduating from Edinboro-- without it, and that is a really scary thought. So she is thinking about where she would have been without a Perkins loan. Where she would have been is highly likely out of school and therefore not working. And the job she got is with a major company in our State. So that is Nikki. I also mentioned on the floor a couple of weeks ago--and I will not repeat it, but I just want to remind folks of her name. Kayla McBride. She is a recent graduate of Temple University in Philadelphia. She is in one corner of the State in Philadelphia, the opposite corner of the State where Nikki went to school in Edinboro. She indicated she received a Perkins loan to help with tuition after her mother was laid off. Then we have another example, someone I met during the break, right near my hometown. We were meeting with students all across the State about this issue. One of them was in Wilkes-Barre. His name is Anthony Fanucci, the student body President, and a senior at Wilkes University in Wilkes-Barre. Anthony's father works overtime to pay for his tuition, and Anthony works every weekend and two jobs over the summer. His Perkins loan helped him stay in school. I met Anthony and he spoke that day in public. Among the things he said was the following: My strengths got me to Wilkes University, but without financial funding, your strengths and your resume and what you've done before that mean nothing. I never ever seek pity for my financial situation because my financial situation is far from rare. He is talking about so many students out there who face a fork in the road at some point. If they have Perkins, they can likely stay in school. If they don't have Perkins, many of them--far too many--will not be able to continue their higher education. We know the program expired on September 30. Here is what it means for--here is the practical implications for students. No new students can receive loans, and while the current recipients are ``grandfathered'' for 5 years, there is uncertainty because we have never been in this circumstance where the program has expired and we don't know exactly what will happen with regard to the implementation of any kind of new changes or new policy by the administration. It is important to note that some will not be benefiting from the grandfathering provision. A student would not be grandfathered if they do one of the following: if they change their major, if they alter their course of study, or if they transfer. I should also mention the cutoff for the grandfathering was June 30, 2015. Let's consider one of those circumstances--if they change their major. We are told by a recent study in our State that 75 percent of students will change their major at some point in their years in college. Let's just say that it is 50 percent or 33 percent. Whatever the number is, that is a lot of students changing their major and thereby maybe taking themselves out of the protection of that grandfathering provision for Perkins loans now that we are in the period after it has expired. Financial aid officials who have written to us talk about other circumstances. I won't read a full letter, but in one letter we got from a financial aid official they talked about ``significant changes in a family's financial circumstances'' and ``unexpected financial difficulties.'' That is the real world of real students and real families without Perkins or at least with the uncertainty with regard to Perkins. Neither situation in my judgment is acceptable. Not having a 1-year extension to a Perkins loan program makes no sense to me and to a lot of students. If we had an extension, we could debate if someone wanted to make changes or debate the elements of a program, but having it expire makes no sense. Even if the expiration doesn't definitively impact you, the uncertainty about that should not be part of a college student's experience. While they are studying, while they are getting through their coursework, especially as freshmen, they should have the certainty or at least the expectation that it will continue to help them. In summary we should, No. 1, continue to work together in a bipartisan fashion to solve this problem. The good news is, despite the partisan rancor and divisions in Washington and in the Senate and the House, on this we have broad bipartisan support--something on the order of 28 co-sponsors, and at last count 6 are Republicans. So we have got folks in both parties working on this. We all believe that we have an obligation to do everything we can to support higher education. No student should have to drop out of college because Congress has not done its job. We have more work to do on this, and I would urge those who have concerns about it or want to have another point of view be debated, that I hope we could work together to get through this impasse and get the Perkins loan at least extended for 1 more year as was done in the House most recently by voice vote. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak today about the Perkins Loan Program, which we spent some time on yesterday and over the last couple of weeks. Senator Baldwin from Wisconsin, who is with us now on the floor, has worked so hard on this, as have many others. We have more than a quarter of the Senate working together to try and get an extension of the Perkins Loan Program. Many Americans are familiar with this program. It is one of the best ways to guarantee access to higher education for young people across the country. We have always said, and I have always said--and we will say it again--if young people can learn more now, they will earn more later. It is not just a rhyme. There is a direct connection between learning and earning in the context of early education as well as higher education. We need to make sure all students, regardless of their income or the circumstances of their birth, have a fair shot to go to college and have the opportunity to reach their full potential. Perkins allows those students to do just that. These are fixed-rate, low-interest loans meant for students with exceptional financial needs. Because these loans are part of a revolving fund, as one student pays them off, another student can use the dollars to receive a loan. By way of example in one State, in Pennsylvania, in the academic year 2013-2014, some 40,000 students at some 100 colleges and universities were able to go to school because of these loans. That 40,000 student number in Pennsylvania is a much bigger number nationwide, of course-- almost 540,000. The actual number is 539,000 students. So for many students this is the choice between going to college and not going at all. It is that stark. For example, the Coalition of Higher Education Assistance Organizations tells us that one quarter of all loan recipients are from families with incomes less than $30,000 a year. Unfortunately, because of inaction here in the Congress, these students will be left high and dry if we don't take action. I shared a story yesterday of Nikki Ezzolo, who is going to school and is a recent graduate of Edinboro University in Northwestern Pennsylvania. I mentioned yesterday also Kayla McBride--she is from Temple--and I will refer back to her story in a moment. But when we consider Nikki's story or Kayla's or so many other young people in Pennsylvania or across the country, we have to focus on what our priorities are here in the Senate. We do have a bipartisan opportunity here. Democrats and Republicans are coming together to extend the Perkins Loan Program. By way of example, when you consider those students in Pennsylvania, here is what it breaks down to when you go institution by institution. This will not be a full recitation of all the institutions in Pennsylvania, but here are a few. In Pennsylvania, this is what this program could mean for individual students and schools: At Temple University, 6,200-some students; at Penn State, 3,100; at the University of Pittsburgh, 2,800; and at West Chester University, 1,000. So those are the kind of numbers just to give a few examples of the impact. We know Perkins has been part of our law and part of the life of our colleges and universities for decades. Some 30 million Americans have benefited. We have to consider what this means for those students, what this means for our States and, of course, what it means for the rest of the country. I know we are going to be having more of a discussion here and offering a consent request, so at this time I will yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Perkins Loan Program as well. We heard a number of important presentations here about the critical nature of this program to students across the country who are trying to fulfill the American dream, and one way to do that is to have access to higher education. I have often said in the context of early learning, whether we are talking about early learning programs or prekindergarten programs, if kids learn more now, they will earn more later. That linkage, that bond between earning and learning is, of course, at the core of what we are talking about when it comes to higher education as well. The benefit of a higher education has become so essential not only to being able to learn and to grow but also to getting the best job you can to be able to move forward. One of the ways young people are able to do that is by having access to Perkins loans. They are fixed-rate, low-interest loans, and they are meant for students who, as we heard before on this floor, have exceptional financial needs. For example, in Pennsylvania, in the 2013 to 2014 school year, nearly 40,000 students in Pennsylvania, at more than 100 colleges and universities, were able to go to school because of these loans. Nationwide, more than 539,000 students were helped. For many students, these loans are the difference between staying in school and working toward a bright future or literally dropping out of school. According to the Coalition of Higher Education Assistance Organizations, one-quarter of all loan recipients are from families with incomes of less than $30,000 a year. We all have examples in our States. I have one example from the northwestern part of Pennsylvania. Edinboro University is part of our State system of higher education. I had a chance to speak at their graduation this year. Nikki Ezzolo, a 2015 graduate of Edinboro University, said the following: I am sending this to you to tell you that I just started my new job at Highmark. Highmark is a major health care company in western Pennsylvania. She goes on to say: I am a single mom who wasn't your normal 20 year old at college. I was an adult student who had left school more than once when I thought I couldn't do it. The last time I came back I was dedicated to getting my degree but I didn't have enough financial aid to help me pay my bill. I had messed up along the way in school and used up my only chance of having a good life with my daughter. I wanted to thank you for the perkins aid that I needed in order to graduate. I am proud to be a college grad and my daughter is proud of me too. I have always been a bartender and this week I started my career at Highmark. I am so grateful for getting the perkins money to help me. I know that I wouldn't be where I am right now without it and that is a really scary thought. Whether it is Nikki from northwestern Pennsylvania or Kayla McBride, a recent graduate of Temple University--Temple University is all the way at the other corner of our State in southeastern Pennsylvania. Kayla also talked about the Perkins loan. Kayla said: I wanted to extend my gratitude to Temple University and the Bursar's Office. With the rising costs of tuition, attending college might seem impossible for some students. I come from a single- family home and my mom did everything in her power to see that I graduated. When my mom was laid off from her job, I thought graduating would no longer be possible. I received some scholarships, but it was still not enough to cover the entire cost of tuition as well as room and board. Without the assistance of the Federal Perkins Loan finishing college would've been very difficult. I am now a college graduate and I am thankful for all of the financial assistance I received during my undergraduate years. College can be an expensive investment, but I am glad that I had the Perkins Loan to assist me. Both cases exemplify and validate the importance of the Perkins Loan Program. Since the 1960s, over 30 million students have been helped by Perkins loans, and we have to do everything we can to continue the program. What we are trying to do now is very simple. We are trying to get some time in order to fully update and reauthorize Perkins loans so that all students have access to an affordable college education. I urge the majority to work with us on this bipartisan effort to allow the bill to pass so we can move forward and continue the Perkins Loan Program even as we focus on changes in the future. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I would like to take this moment for the Congress to note and honor the work of Terry Boston, president and CEO of PJM Interconnection, LLC. It is most fitting that Terry Boston be recognized in the Congressional Record, for he has served countless Americans and played a key role in ensuring adequate infrastructure to drive America's economic development and our citizens' well-being throughout his professional life. Since 2008, Terry Boston has served as president and chief executive officer of PJM located in Valley Forge, PA. In this role, Terry oversees the largest power grid in North America and the largest electricity market in the world. Terry also is president of the Association of Edison Illuminating Companies, Inc., and immediate past president of the GO 15, the association of the world's largest power grid operators. Terry was recently elected to the National Academy of Engineering, one of the highest professional honors accorded an engineer. He is a member of the Board for the Electric Power Research Institute. Terry Boston is past chair of the North American Transmission Forum, dedicated to excellence in performance and sharing industry best practices. He also was one of the eight industry experts selected to direct the North American Reliability Corporation investigation of the August 2003 Northeast/Midwest blackout. Prior to joining PJM, Terry Boston was the executive vice president of the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Nation's largest public power provider. In his 35 years at TVA, Terry directed divisions in transmission and power operations, pricing, contracts and electric system reliability. PJM employs over 600 people in Pennsylvania and performs a critical function by ``keeping the lights on'' 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. PJM helps to ensure the health and well-being of our citizens not just in my State but for over 51 million persons in all or portions of the States of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and the District of Columbia. Mr. President, Terry Boston has been an excellent engineer and an inspirational leader in the electric industry. As he retires from PJM, I ask that you join me and the entire Senate in wishing Terry success in his future endeavors.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to Mr. Harry P. McGrath, Sr., a Pennsylvanian and a close friend. Harry passed away unexpectedly on September 7, 2015. Harry devoted his life to his family and to public service and advocacy. Following his graduation from Dunmore High School, where he was an outstanding student and athlete, and Kutztown University, he worked as a Special Agent in the U.S. Secret Service. During the 1980s he protected President Ronald Reagan and Vice President George H.W. Bush, earning commendations for his work in Grenada and the Khyber Pass. By the time he left the Secret Service to attend law school, he had earned special achievement and performance awards for his significant contributions to the agency's efficient operation. After graduating cum laude from the Widener University School of Law, where he was a member of the Law Review, Harry continued his work in public service as a law clerk for Judge William J. Nealon in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. He went on to become a distinguished lawyer in Northeastern Pennsylvania, admitted to practice law by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. He was a partner in the law firm of O'Malley, Harris, Durkin, and Perry PC and the founder of the McGrath Law Offices in Scranton. With his legal expertise, significant experience and sound judgement, Harry was an ideal person to serve as the chairman of my Judicial Selection for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In addition to his work as a lawyer, Harry was also a strong advocate for Pennsylvania's children, as the solicitor for more than 30 years for the Scranton School District, representing students, parents, teachers, and administrators in matters of education and employment. He was passionate about his work on behalf of children with learning disabilities and other school-aged children in need. He was an early and strong supporter of the new Scranton High School Project and a past member of the Board of Directors of the Friendship House, an organization that provides quality programs and services designated to enhance the well-being of children and families in his community. As much as public service and advocacy defined his career, politics was in Harry's blood. Named after his grandfather, the late Harry P. O'Neill, a U.S. Representative in the 1950s, Harry McGrath worked hard to elect candidates to public office, candidates in whom he believed. He served as Lackawanna County Democratic Party chairman and volunteered his time, talent, and energy to countless campaigns throughout his life. Despite his numerous accomplishment, the most important legacy Harry leaves behind is his family. My thoughts and prayers are with his wife of 33 years, Joell; their four children, Harry, Bob, Betsey, and Joe; his brothers and sisters; all of his nieces and nephews; and his many friends. I pray that God will give them strength and that Harry's life of family, faith, and service will continue to inspire them in the years ahead.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate Mr. Joseph M. Casey for his years of renowned service to the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority, SEPTA, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. On September 30, 2015, Mr. Casey will retire as general manager of SEPTA. Mr. Casey has worked in the transportation sector for over 30 years. His efforts have helped propel SEPTA, the sixth largest transit system in the Nation, to new heights in an era of great change and innovation within the transportation industry. Joe has been at the forefront of this innovation, leading the charge to transform SEPTA from a dependable transportation service to a nationwide leader and trailblazer in public transportation. During his tenure as general manager of SEPTA, Mr. Casey demonstrated a steadfast dedication to customer service, infrastructural innovation, and business integrity. Mr. Casey is committed to the principle of putting the customer first. He established SEPTA's first customer service division, which worked endlessly to ensure customer service was the cornerstone of SEPTA and its employees. Mr. Casey's ``Four Cs'' of customer service-- cleanliness, convenience, courtesy, and communication--quickly became doctrine engrained in the daily operations of the authority. Mr. Casey's unwavering dedication to customer service helped propel SEPTA to record ridership numbers and mold SEPTA into the authority it is today. Mr. Casey not only helped SEPTA become a more advanced and innovative authority, he worked tirelessly to improve the entire transportation infrastructure of Southeastern Pennsylvania. He supervised the attainment of 120 new Silverliner V rail cars and 700 hybrid buses, which were major improvements to SEPTA's operation. Mr. Casey also testified before the U.S. and Pennsylvania House and Senate committees regarding infrastructure and the need for investment. His testimonies helped lead to the passage of Act 89 in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which provides necessary funding for critical infrastructural advancements for both rail and highway projects. Mr. Casey's reputation of integrity and character is reflected in his commitment to economic, environmental, and social sustainability. His dedication to sustainability resulted in SEPTA earning awards such as the 2012 American Public Transportation Association Outstanding Public Transportation System and the Gold Sustainability Recognition. These awards highlight the bright and successful tenure of Mr. Joe Casey as general manager of SEPTA. After his retirement, Mr. Casey will apply his transportation expertise as chair of the transportation committee tasked with planning and coordinating transportation logistics for the 2016 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. I want to once more congratulate Joe Casey on his career as an innovative and honorable leader of SEPTA. His efforts and accomplishments have helped Pennsylvania grow and prosper. I wish him the best of luck and a happy and healthy retirement.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President. I rise today to remember Richard Schweiker, who passed away on July 31, 2015. Congressman, Senator, and Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services Dick Schweiker honorably served his country in public office for more than two decades. Prior to his years of government service, he served his country in the Navy during World War II. As a Congressman from Pennsylvania's 13th District, he was the coauthor of a House Armed Services Committee proposal to end the military draft and make service voluntary and sponsored legislation to allow the government to give extra money to military service personnel if they showed they could reduce expenses. He also supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 along with legislation that created the Medicare and Medicaid Programs. As a Senator, he served on the Labor and Human Resources Committee, eventually becoming its ranking member. This committee is now known as the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on which I serve. Senator Schweiker was a strong supporter of public health initiatives, including the National Diabetes Mellitus Research and Education Act that authorized the National Commission on Diabetes to put together a plan to fight this disease. Dick Schweiker also worked to achieve compromise. In a 2000 Associated Press interview, he commented on that approach: I was a World War II veteran. Our primary objective was to get things done and solve problems. The partisanship and heated rhetoric that have taken over the political landscape wasn't always in vogue. Dick Schweiker decided not to run for reelection in 1980 and worked to help elect Ronald Reagan that November. After the election, President Reagan appointed Schweiker as the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. While in that position, he set up the Medicare prospective payment system in an effort to reduce costs rather than leaving them open-ended. He also continued to support funding for medical research and protected funding for the Head Start early childhood education program. He stepped down as Secretary in 1983. At that time, Senator Ted Kennedy said the following: Dick Schweiker has been a good friend and colleague for many years. As secretary of HHS, he has too often been a lonely voice of compassion and humanity. After leaving public service, Dick Schweiker spent 11 years as president of the American Council of Life Insurance before retiring. Today, we remember and thank Dick Schweiker for his service to Pennsylvania and the Nation. We send our thoughts and prayers to his family.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the service of a fellow Pennsylvanian, VADM Thomas R. Weschler, Retired, who served this country valiantly for 3\1/2\ decades. Vice Admiral Weschler is one of the highest ranking Naval officers to come from Erie, PA, and I am profoundly grateful for his service to our Nation. Admiral Weschler began his service in 1940, following his graduation from the United States Naval Academy in 1939. He served on the USS WASP, CV-7, in World War II, seeing combat in both the Mediterranean and the Pacific, including the invasion of Guadalcanal, and was onboard when the WASP was torpedoed by a Japanese submarine. Admiral Weschler would then go on to command the USS CLARENCE K. BRONSON in action during the Korean war. During the Vietnam war, he commanded amphibious operations against Viet Cong forces in 1965 to 1966, during which time he was awarded the Legion of Merit. In 1966, Admiral Weschler became Commander Naval Support Activity, Danang Republic of Vietnam, and was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal. Following his service in Vietnam, he was awarded a Gold Star for his accomplishments in pioneering and developing the Spruance Class destroyer and the Virginia Class cruiser. In 1970, Vice Admiral Weschler assumed command of Cruiser-Destroyer Flotilla TWO, and in 1971 he became Commander Cruiser-Destroyer Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet. For both of these tours he was awarded a Gold Star. In 1973, he was selected for promotion to vice admiral and reported to Washington for duty as Director for Logistics, Joint Staff, Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Vice Admiral Weschler retired on June 30, 1975 as a three-star vice admiral following more than 34 years of service in the U.S. Navy. After his retirement from the Navy, he continued his service as a professor of Naval Operations at the United States War College, Newport, RI, for more than a decade. On August 28 and 29, 2015, Vice Admiral Weschler will be honored for his service at the opening of the Hagen History Center in Erie, PA, where the Military Gallery will also be dedicated in his honor. I am proud to share in the celebration of Vice Admiral Weschler's career, his meritorious conduct, his extraordinary leadership, and his distinguished and unwavering service to this great Nation. I extend my sincerest gratitude to Vice Admiral Weschler, a native son of Erie, PA, whom we are proud to call one of our own, and wish him and his family all the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise as well--as the senior Senator from Michigan just told us--to highlight and celebrate this anniversary, 50 years for both Medicare and Medicaid. I am going to focus my remarks on Medicaid and to say, first, that contrary to what we often hear about an important program such as this, Medicaid is working. Medicaid is helping tens of millions of Americans. We can all come up with ways to make changes, and we probably will over the next couple of years, but Medicaid is maybe one of the most underrated health care programs in recent American history, for sure, and it is not simply millions who are benefiting from Medicaid but tens of millions. There are 68 million Americans who are Medicaid beneficiaries nationally and 36 million of them are children. When folks talk about families and children and the priority we place on helping our families, I hope that means strengthening Medicaid, not slashing it, not destroying it, and not taking some of the steps that have been proposed in Washington over the last couple years. It is interesting, about 45 percent of all births in the country are paid for by Medicaid. So 45 percent of the babies born in America are on this Earth because they have the Medicaid Program to pay for the cost of the birth, which is not inexpensive. On the other end of the age spectrum, about 60 percent of nursing home placements in the country come through Medicaid. This isn't a program for someone else far away. This is a program that affects most of America. A lot of lower middle income families and others have the opportunity to place a loved one in a nursing home because of Medicaid, as well as what I said about the births. Another way to think about Medicaid is the impact on children across the country--not only children in urban areas or children in communities where most families are low-income. When you examine both health care for children as it relates to Medicaid and to children who receive health care through the Children's Health Insurance Program-- which in Pennsylvania we call CHIP--in rural areas that number is very high. There was a study done last fall that 47 percent of rural children get their health care from either Medicaid or from the CHIP program--actually, a higher percentage of the children in rural areas than in urban areas. This is serious business when we talk about highlighting the benefits of Medicaid--not just celebrating an anniversary but celebrating working and having a sense of purpose and solidarity about preserving Medicaid for our families and strengthening it where we can. One of the reasons Medicaid has been so successful over time is because of some of the strategies that were embedded in the program many years ago, especially as it relates to children. We know Medicaid serves children. It serves individuals with disabilities. In fact, that is a big number as well. Now, 8.8 million nonelderly individuals with disabilities are Medicaid beneficiaries nationally. It serves individuals with disabilities. But when you focus just on children as a segment of Medicaid, here is what we find in one of the strategies put in place years ago: The so-called EPSDT--Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment Program--that benefit is of substantial significance for the future of our children and therefore the future of our country. Early periodic screening, diagnosis, and treatment is responsible for making sure vulnerable children receive quality and comprehensive care. Private insurance companies should emulate in their care what is provided in the so-called EPSDT. Twenty-five million low-income children have access to this important program through Medicaid. What is it? I think it is evident from the name, but it is good to highlight what it means. First of all, the ``early'' part of it is the early access in identifying problems early. The second word is ``periodic,'' which means checking children's health at periodic age-appropriate intervals. ``Screening'' is self-evident, but maybe you don't remember what is behind the screening. It is providing physical, mental, developmental, dental, hearing, vision, and other screening tests to detect potential problems. The ``screening'' part of early periodic screening, diagnosis, and treatment is vital. ``Diagnostic'' is performing a diagnostic test to follow up when a risk is identified. ``Treatment'' is control, correct or reduce health problems when they are found. This isn't just vital to the life of that child and his or her family and his or her ability to grow and learn in school and then succeed and get a job and contribute to our country, it is also important to the rest of us. We are going to be a much stronger country if children are the beneficiaries of preventative health care. We all know that. The data has been telling us that for decades. We are just starting to get about the business of finally, at long last, doing more preventative work in our health care system, just like Medicaid has been doing on behalf of children for many years. I think we are learning some lessons from Medicaid that can be applied to the rest of our health care system. I know we are short on time because we have a number of people who want to make presentations today. I will reduce my remarks in this fashion. I will tell one story from my home State. Here is one example of a particular family, the Sinclair family. In this case, Owen Sinclair was born with a genetic defect with wide-ranging effects. His aorta wraps around his trachea and esophagus. He has trouble swallowing, jaundice, and has other organs that are malformed because of his condition. He needed extensive treatment at a specialized unit of the local children's hospital in Pennsylvania. After birth, he had to stay in the hospital on and off for most of the first 6 months of his life, but his parents' insurance only covered him for 30 days after birth. The tests and treatments and the surgeries and medications were far beyond the income of his parents. In the first 30 days, their copays alone were more than $15,000--30 days, $15,000. Medicaid literally saved this child's life. Owen Sinclair needs continuing testing, treatment, and nutrition support. The Sinclairs worry about their little boy, but at least they don't have to worry about going bankrupt because they love him and want him to get the medical care he needs. That is the real world of the substantial and immeasurable benefits that Medicaid provides in the life of a child, the life of a family, and obviously in the life of our Nation's future. We have to do more today than just celebrate 50 years. That is nice. We should all take time to celebrate, but we have to be committed and recommitted to the future of Medicaid, to strengthen it, to support it--not to undermine it and not to destroy the benefits we all know are vital to our children, vital to their future development, and vital to help them learn. If kids learn more when they are young, they are going to earn more later. We are all better off for that. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I wish to honor Patrolman John James Wilding, who passed away after being injured in the line of duty on July 12, 2015. The loss of Patrolman Wilding is a tragedy for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, but the legacy of his bravery and selfless service to the people of Scranton will live on. Born in Scranton, Patrolman Wilding dedicated his career to protecting and serving others. Prior to joining the Scranton Police Department in 2014, he worked at St. Joseph's Center, Dunbar Armored and Lackawanna College, where he built personal connections throughout the community that greatly influenced his service on the police force. He was well-known for his compassionate demeanor, respectful leadership, and love of his community. He loved his family fiercely, taking every opportunity to spend time with his wife Kristen, and children Loa Mae and Sidney. Though Patrolman Wilding's life and career in public safety were cut short, we are all grateful for his dedicated service to Pennsylvania. He set a wonderful example of community activism for his children and he will be remembered for his bravery and humility. My thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends during this difficult time.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, this amendment focuses on the link between learning and earning. We know that if we invest in our children in prekindergarten education, they will learn more now and earn more later. It is a State-Federal partnership. It is paid for. It focuses on 4-year-olds. Three million 4-year-olds in the country will benefit from high-quality early learning. The best testimony about this issue comes from parents. Beth in southwestern Pennsylvania said--talking about an early learning program in Pennsylvania: Her daughter couldn't write any of her letters or even recognize them. Now she's improved so much since the first day of class. And then Megan in southeastern Pennsylvania said: When her son came into this program, he was shy and had very little verbal communication. He now talks nonstop and loves hearing. That is why we need this amendment to pass. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Casey amendment.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a couple aspects of the legislation. I will do it in summary form. I will submit a longer statement for the Record. First, I wish to say how much I appreciate the work that has been done not only this week but over many weeks and months that led up to today. We were working a number of months ago on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee to get a bill out of the committee. After it was completed, of course it looked easy, but I know how hard Senator Alexander, the chairman of the committee, and Senator Murray, the ranking member, worked to reach this point. The vote that day was 22 to 0, and now we are considering the bill on the floor. So that is significant and noteworthy, especially in these times in the Senate. I just wanted to talk about a couple of aspects of this legislation. For far too long, States have had to deal with the uncertainty of Federal waivers. One aspect of the legislation we are focused on is that we need one law that provides States and districts with more flexibility. We hear all across the country--I certainly heard it in Pennsylvania--that among the concerns people had was a lack of flexibility, sometimes a one-size-fits-all regimen that came from Washington. So that flexibility is important. We also want to make sure we are recapturing the original intent of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act--to protect our most vulnerable students. The bill acknowledges the anxiety students, parents, and teachers often feel about testing, but it also realizes and contemplates that we must at the same time have a way to determine what students are learning each year. So I am pleased to see that the legislation strikes the balance by maintaining annual testing while taking significant steps to reduce the high-stakes nature of the testing. So while there is more work to be done to ensure that all our children have access to high-quality early childhood education, I am encouraged that the bill builds on decades of research on early learning by requiring that States align their early learning guidelines with their kindergarten through 12th grade standards. So this change will help educators from Head Start, childcare, and other early childhood education programs in elementary schools work together so young children have a successful continuity of learning over time that sets a strong foundation throughout the kindergarten through 12th grade years and beyond. That is something I pushed for over many years in the so- called Continuum of Learning Act, and I am pleased it has been included in the bill. Mr. President, I wish to move to two other topics. I know we may have limited time. The first is on the question of bullying, which we have begun to address in the debates we have had leading up to this legislation. We had a vote yesterday on Senator Franken's Student Non- Discrimination Act. I supported that, and I commend him for his work, but even with that vote, we have a long way to go on this issue. Bullying, of course, is not what my generation understood it to be. It is a much worse problem today. It is more severe, it is more damaging, and it is destroying lives all across the country. More students than ever are not in school every day for one reason-- bullying, because of the impact bullying has on their lives. If a child is gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender, they are often and disproportionately the victims of bullying. If a student has a disability, he or she is often the victim of bullying, and again it is disproportionate. So students are more likely to be bullied if they are disabled, if they have a disability, or if they are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. That is an abomination. That is an insult to our country. Unless we begin to do something about this, we will still see those numbers soaring. Bullying, of course, is the ultimate betrayal. It is a betrayal by adults with regard to children, and it is a betrayal of everything we claim to stand for in America because we say to our children, ``If you go to school every day and study hard and go to class and do your homework and study hard for tests and quizzes, you will succeed,'' but, of course, often children are betrayed because in between there, they are bullied. When they go home, they are bullied. When dinner is over at night, they are bullied. All throughout the night they are bullied often because of technology and because of vicious students who go after one student and use social media or other tools to harass and bully that person. We have to do something about this. We have to do more than just debate it and talk about it. We need to do something. I am hoping that some of the efforts I have undertaken in my legislation will be the subject of not just more debate but more action, progress, and results when we get through the conference committee because I think this overall legislation should reach the point of getting to conference. I am going to conclude because I see our chairman, who wants some time before we start.

Mr. CASEY. Thank you. I wish to give one example of a particular individual--a real-life example of what bullying means, and I will have some comments as well about prekindergarten education. This is a real-life story. Brandon Bitner, 14 years old, of Mount Pleasant Mills, PA, walked 13 miles from his home on an early Friday morning in November of 2010 to a busy intersection and threw himself in front of an oncoming tractor trailer after leaving a suicide note at his home. That is what happened to a 14-year-old Pennsylvanian. I cannot even imagine the horror of that, what led to that action he took when he took his own life. It is, unfortunately, not an isolated example. There are too many of these today. There would be too many if there were one, but unfortunately there are many more than one. So there seems to be little doubt in our minds and certainly in the minds of those who knew Brandon why he did what he did on that day in November of 2010. I am going to quote a friend, Takara Jo Folk. Here is what Takara said: ``It was because of bullying.'' That was written in a letter to the Daily Item, a newspaper in central Pennsylvania. Quoting again from that letter: ``It was not about race or gender, but they bullied him for his sexual preferences and the way he dressed. Which,'' she said, ``they wrongly accused him of.'' Brandon's suicide note reportedly explained that he was constantly bullied at Midwest High School in Middleburg, where he was a freshman. Bullies at that school allegedly called Brandon names--names which I will not repeat on the floor of the Senate. He stated in the note that a humiliating event in school this past week was the ``straw that broke the camel's back.'' Brandon was an accomplished violinist, having been a member of the Susquehanna Youth Orchestra in 2009, the year before he took his own life. That story, unfortunately and tragically, is emblematic of the problem. We read these stories all the time. They may not be every single day and in every single newspaper, but not more than a week can go by in the United States of America where you don't read something like that. I have others I could read as well, but I think folks within the sound of my voice know this. We all know this. So what are we going to do about it? Well, we all have a role to play. Parents have to do a lot more. Parents haven't done enough. Public officials haven't done enough. Schools haven't done enough. You could go down the list. At a minimum--and that is why I introduced legislation that we want to get back to; we want to be able to reach consensus--at a minimum, we should say to school districts: Look, if you are getting Federal money and you don't have a policy in place that deals with bullying and harassment and you don't specifically define or list or enumerate what is unlawful conduct, what is prohibited, then there should be a consequence for that. You should have to prescribe what is wrong by way of a set of rules, a code of conduct. You should enforce it. And you should keep data. If we take those kinds of steps, at least we can say that in a school or a school district, there is a heightened consciousness about this problem and that it is everybody's problem. This isn't just the problem of the person being bullied and the person engaging in bullying; it is the problem of all of us, whether we are parents, taxpayers, public officials, or whatever. We all have an obligation. So I hope we can get back to this, in addition to continuing the good work Senator Franken and others have started, because this is a betrayal. It is a betrayal of our children. And we are all diminished by our allowing this problem to persist. The only good news here--and it is significant--is that in a lot of places we have parents who are taking responsibility, teachers, school administrators, school board directors, and of course students themselves taking on the responsibility of making sure in their school there will be zero tolerance for bullying, the best that they can implement that kind of a policy. So we have students who are working with other students to resolve disputes, to help someone who might be a victim before something goes wrong and someone becomes a tragedy after being a victim of bullying. So we have a ways to go on this issue, and we have more to do. Amendment No. 2242 Let me conclude with some thoughts about what we will likely be voting on tomorrow, which is prekindergarten education. It is a very rare vote on the floor of the Senate where the entire Senate will cast a vote on a very basic program--a program to make sure that if a State wants to join together in partnership with the Federal Government to build upon, expand, enlarge, or even start from scratch an early learning, prekindergarten program for 4-year-olds, this legislation will give them that opportunity. This is paid for. We have an offset for the cost of it. This is the right thing to do for 3 million American children, meaning that if this prekindergarten education program were enacted and if every State took advantage and implemented this program, 3 million children in the country would have prekindergarten education, 93,930 in Pennsylvania alone. The State of Texas, for example, upon passage of this kind of a program into law, will have the opportunity to have 300,000 children get the benefit of early learning. Let me say finally that this is not just any program; we want high- quality early learning. All the experts know, have known for years, and have told us for years what works. If there is a high-quality program, a child will learn more now and he or she will earn more later. It is not just a rhyme, it is the truth. We have 50 years of data making that direct linkage between learning and earning, and all we need to do is give States the opportunity to work with us to develop a nationwide strategy so that the United States can say we are preparing not just our children for that bright future we hope they have but that we are preparing our workforce and our economy. When you make that linkage between learning and earning, you are literally not just improving the life of that child, but you are improving our economic prosperity as well. I think our economic destiny is tied to these kinds of strategies. So we have a long way to go to get there, but tomorrow we should have a vote, and I am looking forward to that. I also again commend Senators Alexander and Murray for their work on the legislation overall. With that, I yield the floor.