Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the tragic passing of a 7-year-old child, Jakelin Caal, on December 8 of this year. Jakelin died in Customs and Border Patrol custody, reportedly due to shock and dehydration. It is an understatement to say that we need a thorough and independent investigation to understand exactly what happened in this case and to make sure it never happens again. Jakelin entered Customs and Border Protection custody and was held with her father overnight with about 160 migrants, nearly half of whom were minors, at the Antelope Wells border station. Customs and Border Protection has stated that food and water were made available, but the child's father and news articles have stated that water was not--was not--available. It is not visible from a distance, but I will just hold up a story and a headline from today's Washington Post. The headline reads: ``Lawyers: No water provided to migrant who died.'' Here is what the first paragraph of this Washington Post story, dated today, says: El Paso. Seven-year-old Jakelin Caal and her father, Nery, were not provided water during the eight hours they were held in a remote Border Patrol facility with 161 other migrants, the family's lawyers said Wednesday, contradicting statements by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The story goes on from there. Similarly--and I am getting back to my observations of this--although health screenings were reportedly conducted, news reports indicate that none of the agents on duty had advanced medical training. Though the father signed a DHS Form I-779, which is titled ``Juvenile Medical Screening,'' and he apparently also signed other medical paperwork, there are questions as to whether he understood the form itself. I believe it is critical that we evaluate this form and also evaluate the medical screening that children undergo. I would like to know--and I am sure many Americans would like to know--whether the American Academy of Pediatrics and our Nation's medical professionals believe the current system is adequate. I would add this: When this form and other protocols and procedures were put in place, were those experts, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, consulted? Was this process or the forms informed by the expertise that is available? That is another set of questions. This has to be about improving the conditions at our Border Patrol stations to make sure they are safe, including ensuring that there is sufficient food, water, and medical attention at every one of these Border Patrol stations. If that means that the administration comes forward to the Senate or the House in the appropriations process to have more dollars appropriated for this purpose, not just general appropriations but for this purpose--to make sure that food and water and appropriate medical attention is available, and trained medical professionals are available at every Border Patrol station--we should make sure that we engage in a dialogue about such specific appropriations. Understanding what happened in this tragedy is not about assigning blame. That is easy. That happens all the time in Washington. This shouldn't be one of those instances. This is about fixing the problem so it never happens again. It is also about making sure that our policy and the procedures that surround this policy and the details of the policy and the resources dedicated to it are not just correct, but that these policies are consistent with our values. Therefore, we need an expeditious, thorough, and independent investigation. We are told that the inspector general is reviewing this. That is good, but that report has to be done expeditiously, and we have to get to the bottom of what happened to this 7-year-old child. In addition to all of that, there needs to be debate about how to improve the system and how to investigate what happened, with recommendations on the record to improve these policies. We also need Commissioner Kevin McAleenan and Secretary Nielsen to come to testify before Congress so they can provide testimony about what happened here and about what both of them and their Agencies are doing to make sure this never happens again. Finally, we must take a moment to think about the broader atmosphere and the policies that relate to our border. Those who come to our shores seeking asylum are often fleeing terrible conditions of violence and poverty. In some cases, they are fleeing from almost indescribable horror. All of those seeking asylum should have a fair opportunity to present their claims and should not be subjected to unhealthy, unsanitary, or unsafe conditions while their claims are processed. It is entirely possible to have an immigration system that treats all individuals with compassion and dignity while also securing the border and protecting national security. None of that is internally inconsistent. A great nation can do all of that. I am certain that our Nation is capable of that. We must come together as a nation to mourn the loss of Jakelin and others who die under similar circumstances. We need to put politics aside to fix our broken immigration system so that these policies are consistent with our American values. I would yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to former President George Herbert Walker Bush who died on November 30 at the age of 94. Henry Clay once said, ``Recognize at all times the paramount right of your Country to your most devoted services, whether she treat you ill or well, and never let selfish views or interests predominate over the duties of patriotism.'' Beginning at the age of 18 when he joined the Navy and served in World War II, President's Bush's life was a life of service and of a greater commitment to his country. Over several decades and in numerous roles, President Bush served with honor and decency offering his country the best of his wisdom, experience, and dedication. When he lost reelection in 1992, he left a note to his successor that ended with ``Your success is now our country's success. I'm rooting hard for you. Good luck.'' Even in defeat, President Bush's focus was on the future of the country and its success. While many commentators have highlighted his achievements in foreign policy, we should remember as well his domestic policy accomplishments, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act. George Bush was a great supporter of people with disabilities even before he became President. As Vice President to Ronald Reagan, he met with disability advocates Evan Kemp and Justin Dart, forming both a policy partnership and friendship with them. Both Kemp and Dart were wheelchair users and were able to convince the then-Vice President of the need for a civil rights bill for Americans with disabilities. When he became President, Bush tapped two key legal advisers, his White House Counsel Boyden Gray and distinguished former Pennsylvania Governor Attorney General Richard L. Thornburg, to work with Congress to craft legislation that would be the civil rights law for people with disabilities. Working closely with House leaders Tony Coelho, Steny Hoyer, and Steve Bartlett and Senate leaders Tom Harkin, Ted Kennedy, Bob Dole, and Orrin Hatch, they crafted a bill that was introduced in the spring of 1989 but failed to pass. The following year, with President Bush himself and his White House staff working with the congressional leaders and advocates, the Americans with Disabilities Act passed the House and the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support. The signing ceremony was held on the South Lawn of the White House with hundreds of disability advocates in attendance. As President Bush signed the bill into law, he said, ``Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down,'' and with the stroke of a pen that represented years of advocacy and political compromise, President Bush signed the last great civil rights law of the 20th century. The world is emptier without President Bush, but his legacy lives on in those who knew and worked with him and in the millions of people whose lives were made better by his policies and his service. They are his ``thousands of points of light,'' and they carry forth his vision and his commitment every day.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to join in the remarks of the Senator from West Virginia, who worked very hard to make sure we had a resolution that would allow us to direct the Senate legal counsel to intervene in the lawsuit. Of course, the lawsuit is beyond the district court. We await what might happen in an appellate court. But the best way for anyone in this body to express their disagreement with the removal of the protections for those who might have a preexisting condition, if you believe that those protections should remain the law of the land as they are now, then you should, as a Member of the House or the Senate--even if you wanted to be in favor and voted in favor of repealing the Affordable Care Act, you could still argue that in the interest of preserving those protections, without question, in the interest of providing certainty to not just tens of millions of Americans but many millions more than that who have these protections in law right now--did not have those protections before the Affordable Care Act--if that is what you believe, you could very easily say: Let's preserve them and make a different argument in this court case, file a brief, and try to intervene, as you could in this case. But for some reason around here, some people think they can have it both ways. They do television ads and campaigns or give speeches back home saying: Oh, don't worry, I want to protect and I want to preserve the protections for preexisting conditions, but at the same time do nothing about it. There is no third way here. You are either in favor of those protections, maintaining in law the protections for those who have a preexisting condition, or you are not. You are either for that or you are not. If you are for it, I think you are dutybound to take action to preserve it. Right now, these protections are at risk. They will be in greater jeopardy if an appellate court were to agree with the district court. So I think folks here have to make a decision: You are either for maintaining these protections, which carries with it a responsibility to take action to make sure that those protections are in law--are kept in law, remain a part of our law--or you have to go to the other side, which is you throw up your hands and say: Either I am not for those protections or I am not going to do anything about it. So you have to take action or not. I think that is true of people in both parties and both Chambers, but when you consider what is at stake in a State like Pennsylvania, we have a huge portion of our population--more than 3 million people--who live in rural communities. With 67 counties in Pennsylvania, 48 of them are rural. A couple years after the Affordable Care Act passed we saw in Pennsylvania--this is only maybe 2 years ago now, and I am sure the numbers haven't changed that much--we had about 280,000 people who got their healthcare through the Affordable Care Act but lived in those 48 rural counties. Of the roughly 280,000 who got coverage, 180,000 were in rural communities. Lots of folks in rural areas are worried about the protections they got because they were benefited by Medicaid expansion, and the balance of those got their healthcare through the exchanges. If you are in a rural community and you got healthcare most recently through the exchanges or even if you had healthcare prior to 2010 or prior to the last several years, you have protections that you didn't have before. Of course, in rural communities in Pennsylvania, you have even higher incidents in many cases of those who have an opioid problem. These healthcare decisions, these healthcare votes that we cast, these healthcare court cases have even greater significance in rural communities--whether it is preexisting condition protections, whether it is having the coverage of Medicaid that allows you to get treatment and services for an opioid problem, or whether you are just dependent on healthcare because of your own health or that of a family member, especially children. I would just make a couple more points because I know we are limited in time. Here is some data on the impact of the Affordable Care Act and what could happen in some communities in a State like Pennsylvania that have a high significant rural population. We are told in one study that since 2010, 83 percent of rural hospitals have closed, and 90 percent of these rural hospitals that closed have been in States that have not--or have not as of that time period--expanded Medicaid when the hospital closed. So we are talking about a court case that would, in essence, invalidate the Affordable Care Act. We are talking about not just healthcare loss or coverage loss in a rural community, we are talking about job loss and devastation. In our State, we have something on the order of 25 rural counties where the No. 1 or No. 2 employer is a hospital. If that hospital is badly undermined, if they can't make the margins work because of cuts to Medicaid or the elimination of Medicaid expansion, as some around here want to do--not just cut it but eliminate it--you are going to have economic devastation in those communities in addition to healthcare devastation. The staff of the Joint Economic Committee has estimated that if the Affordable Care Act were struck down, which is the effect of this Federal court case of just last week, 17 million people would lose coverage next year--17 million people in just 1 year. What we should be doing around here, in addition to urging a court-- or any court--not to strike it down, is to have bipartisan hearings for a long time on lots of ideas. We need at least weeks of that, if not longer. If there is one area or one place of consensus around here, it is that healthcare costs for too many Americans are too high. We have to get costs down, and people in both parties have a lot of work to do on that. The second thing we hear back home and across the country is prescription drug costs especially are too high for too many families. Neither party has done enough on that issue. We have to get those down as well. If we focus on the priorities of most Americans, which is not repealing this law; it is not throwing out or ending Medicaid expansion, which helps with the opioid crisis and helps a lot of our rural communities especially--what we would do is focus on the priorities of the American people: get the cost of healthcare down, get the cost of prescription drug costs down, and deal with any other issues that have been brought to the table for those who care about improving our healthcare system. If the American people see only a battle about one side wanting repeal and the other side working every day to try to stop that, we are not going to advance very far on their agenda. Their agenda is not that fight. Their agenda is to protect the gains we have, make sure people don't lose coverage, and make sure a much larger portion of the population--virtually everyone you know--doesn't lose protections that were put into law a couple of years ago. If we do that and focus on those priorities, I think the American people will believe we are beginning to do our job in both parties on healthcare. The worst thing we can do is go back to the days when someone with a preexisting condition was denied coverage or was charged a higher rate because of that preexisting condition. We don't want to go back to those dark days. We should insist that we never reverse course on this issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to my colleague, Senator Bill Nelson, who will leave the Senate after 18 years of service in the Senate and over 40 years as a public official in the State of Florida. Abigail Adams once asked, ``If we do not lay out ourselves in the service of mankind whom should we serve?'' Throughout his career, Senator Nelson worked to make life better for the people of Florida and the United States. Florida and Pennsylvania share a distinction in having among the largest percentage of seniors in their States and therefore millions of Medicare beneficiaries. Through his work on the Finance Committee, Senator Nelson pushed to guarantee that Medicare provided quality care to our seniors and people with disabilities. Senator Nelson worked every day to ensure that our government kept the original promise President Johnson made in 1965 to guarantee quality, affordable healthcare for beneficiaries. Florida has a coastline of 1,350 miles, and Bill Nelson understood that the beaches and the oceans needed to be protected from offshore drilling and pollution. Current and future generations of Floridians and others who visit the State will enjoy the benefits of Senator Nelson's work in fighting to maintain and enhance those protections. Senator Nelson has also been a leader in the areas of science and space. As a former astronaut who journeyed into space in 1986 on the space shuttle Columbia, Senator Nelson understood the importance of exploration and discovery and never stopped imagining what is possible. We will miss Senator Nelson in this Chamber, and we thank him for his decades of service on behalf of the people of Florida and our Nation. We have no doubt that he will continue to find ways to make a difference and serve our country in the years ahead.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to my colleague, Senator Jeff Flake. First in the House of Representatives and later in the U.S. Senate, Jeff Flake has served the people of Arizona and the Nation for over 15 years. Senator Flake has a strong record of supporting democracy at home and abroad, finding areas of compromise on difficult issues like immigration reform and making sure our Nation keeps its promise to veterans. Senator Flake has been a leader on immigration reform efforts, and he has worked tirelessly to find a path forward to address the needs of our immigration system. In 2013, Senator Flake was one of the lead authors of bipartisan immigration reform legislation that would have modernized our immigration system, secured our borders, and provided a tough but fair path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants in our country. Through his position in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Senator Flake has advocated for policies that promote democracy, economic growth, and quality of life improvements for people around the world. Here at home, Senator Flake has helped veterans in Arizona receive assistance and recognition from the Federal Government. In recent years, Jeff Flake has been a leading voice in speaking up for the institution of the Senate and its role as part of a coequal branch of government with the executive' branch. He has sought to hold Presidents of both parties accountable as a Member of the Senate. We will miss Senator Flake in the Senate next year, but I have no doubt that he will continue to find ways to serve his State and our Nation in the years ahead. We wish him well in that endeavor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to my colleague Senator Orrin Hatch and his more than 40 years of public service. Only five U.S. Senators have served longer than Senator Hatch, and he is one of the few who have served as President Pro Tempore of the Senate, an honor given to the longest serving Member of the majority party. Some may not know this, but Orrin Hatch was born and raised in Pittsburgh, PA. He attended the University of Pittsburgh Law School and practiced law in the city before moving to Utah years before his election to the Senate. Senator Hatch has too many legislative accomplishments to list, but I will focus on one that is so important to our family, the Children's Health Insurance Program. Nelson Mandela once said, ``There can be no keener revelation of a society's soul than the way in which it treats its children.'' The Children's Health Insurance program, known by the acronym CHIP, is a prime example of when our Nation took an important step forward to care for our children. Senator Hatch worked with our former colleague Senator Ted Kennedy and others to ensure that children from low-income families who were not eligible for Medicaid had access to healthcare. CHIP holds a special place in my heart as well because my father, Governor Robert P. Casey, signed into law one of the first children's health insurance programs in the Nation in 1992. Pennsylvania's CHIP served as the model for the national program that today provides healthcare to nearly 10 million children. We will miss Senator Hatch here, but he leaves the Senate knowing that his work has positively impacted the lives of millions of Americans. We wish Senator Orrin Hatch well as he returns to Utah.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to my colleague, Claire McCaskill. Claire and I came to the Senate together in January 2007, and she has served the people of Missouri and the United States with distinction for the past 12 years. Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once remarked, ``Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.'' When I consider Claire's service and her work on both the Special Committee on Aging and the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, I am reminded of Justice Brandeis's words. Senator McCaskill was tireless in her efforts to shed light on policies and practices that hurt seniors, veterans, and the vulnerable in our Nation. For example, Senator McCaskill has been a strong advocate of empowering veterans, giving them a voice, and holding the VA accountable through the Veterans' Customer Satisfaction Program she designed. This program allows veterans to provide anonymous feedback on their healthcare treatment at VA facilities across the country. Senator McCaskill has also been a champion for seniors. She used her position on the Special Committee on Aging to investigate fraudulent Medicare bills and an IRS-impersonation scheme to ensure seniors have access to quality healthcare and a financially stable retirement. I had the honor of succeeding her as ranking member of the Aging Committee and have worked to continue her focus on protecting seniors from scam artists. Finally, Senator McCaskill's work on the Victims Protection Act of 2014 is a shining example of her commitment to protecting the wellbeing of our servicemembers who have endured the horror of sexual assault in the military. When many in power choose to stand down, Claire stands up for survivors. The Senate, and especially the class of 2006, will miss Senator Claire McCaskill in this Chamber, but I have no doubt that she will find a way to use her extraordinary skills to help those who are powerless. Thank you, Claire, for your years of public service.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to speak about my colleague, Senator Dean Heller, who will leave the Senate at the end of this year after more than a decade of combined service in the House of Representatives and the Senate. During this time, Dean Heller has worked to guarantee that our veterans have what they need when they return home. As a member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, Senator Heller worked to increase access to care for veterans and fought to guarantee that the Veterans Administration provides high-quality services across Nevada's widespread rural communities. I worked with Senator Heller to reduce the VA disability claims backlog and improve accountability at the Veterans Administration. We thank Senator Heller for his service in the Senate and know he will continue to find ways to serve the people of Nevada.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to my colleague, Senator Joe Donnelly, who will leave the Senate at the end of this year. During his time in the U.S. Senate, Senator Donnelly has worked tirelessly for our seniors, our servicemembers and middle-class families in Indiana and across our country. I have had the pleasure of serving beside Senator Donnelly on the Special Committee on Aging, where I have witnessed his dedication to protecting the rights of older Americans. Senator Donnelly has worked to protect Medicare, to guarantee senior citizens' healthcare options are not restricted. Senator Donnelly and I also served together on the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry where he introduced the Federal Water Quality Protection Act to protect the interest of our farmers by requiring the EPA to consult with them to ensure every American has access to clean water. Senator Donnelly's dedication to our servicemen and women was second to none. The first bill he introduced as a U.S. Senator, the Sexton Act, has improved mental health services by requiring all Active servicemembers receive a yearly mental health screening. I will miss working with Joe Donnelly in the next Congress, but I am certain he will continue to find a way to serve the people of Indiana and our Nation in the years ahead. We wish him well in those endeavors.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to my colleague, Senator Heidi Heitkamp, who will be leaving the Senate at the end of this year. During her time in the U.S. Senate, Heidi never failed to remind us that we are blessed to serve here, to help others, and move our Nation forward. As a member of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Senator Heitkamp worked tirelessly on the farm bill, making sure it included provisions such as crop insurance to assure continuity of the quality American agricultural products. Through her service on the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, Senator Heitkamp worked across the aisle, delivering bipartisan housing finance legislation that protects Americans from financial crises and preserves 30-year fixed mortgage rates. Through her work on the Indian Affairs Committee, Senator Heitkamp has been a champion for Native American and women's rights. She created a commission on Native children to address many of the challenges faced by Native American communities, including access to healthcare and education. In order to combat human trafficking and violence against women, Senator Heitkamp introduced Savanna's Act to create a platform for data collection and sharing for best-practice response protocols. Through her work on the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, Senator Heitkamp promoted investing in small business to boost the American economy. One example is the SEED Act, which she introduced to increase early stage investment to foster the growth of small businesses and startups. Senators are often described as workhorses or showhorses. Without question, Senator Heitkamp is a workhorse, and she leaves behind a legacy of accomplishment that will continue to benefit the people of North Dakota and all Americans for many years to come. We thank her for her service, and we wish her well.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to my colleague Senator Bob Corker, who will be retiring from the Senate this year. Senator Corker and I were both elected in 2006. He was the only Republican in a class of 10 new Senators. Through his years of service on the Foreign Relations Committee, most recently as its chairman, Bob Corker worked to build a better world. For example, Senator Corker worked with me and several of his Republican colleagues on global food security. Senator Corker worked with Senator Isakson and me to pass the Global Food Security Act in 2016. This bill, first introduced by Senator Lugar of Indiana in 2008, allowed us to take a more strategic approach to foreign assistance and how we help to combat poverty and hunger around the world. Senator Corker's work played an important role in creating a better future for millions around the world. As he retires from the Senate, we thank Bob Corker for his years of service and his commitment to the idea that America should be a force for good in the world.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to remember Judge Richard P. Conaboy, who served the people of Lackawanna County and the Middle District of Pennsylvania as a judge for over five decades. Judge Conaboy was born and raised in Scranton, PA. After graduating from the University of Scranton in 1945, he served in the Army Air Force and became a sergeant before his discharge in 1947. He earned a law degree from Catholic University in 1950 and practiced law in Scranton for 12 years until he was appointed to be a judge on the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas in 1962. He served on this court with distinction for 17 years. Judge Conaboy was nominated to the Federal bench by President Jimmy Carter and confirmed by the Senate in 1979. He went on to serve the Middle District of Pennsylvania for nearly four decades. Judge Conaboy also served as chairman of the U.S. Sentencing Commission from 1994 to 1998. Notably, during his tenure, Judge Conaboy raised concerns about Congress's decision to address the crack cocaine epidemic by significantly enhancing penalties for crack, but not powder, cocaine, creating a sentencing disparity that he believed was having a profound disproportionate impact on minority communities. His opposition to this disparity and his dedication to fairness in sentencing presaged Congress's passage of the Fair Sentencing Act in 2010 and have continued to influence efforts to reform Federal sentencing laws. Judge Conaboy was known for his legal acumen, as well as his humility, patience, and fairness. Members of the Lackawanna County legal community have recalled his unique ability to resolve disputes and bring parties to the table with his sense of humor and deep respect for all people appearing before him. He worked tirelessly on behalf of the people of the Middle District, and he continued to hear matters before the court until his death. Judge Conaboy is survived by his wife of 68 years, Marion, as well as their 12 children, 48 grandchildren, and 49 great- grandchildren.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life and career of U.S. District Court Judge William J. Nealon. Appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania by President John F. Kennedy in 1962, Judge Nealon became the longest serving Federal District Court judge in U.S. history on August 28, 2018. Born and raised in Scranton, PA, Judge Nealon attended Miami University until he put his education on hold to join the Marine Corps during World War II. He served his country from 1942 to 1945, and when he returned, he earned his bachelor's degree from Villanova University and his law degree from Catholic University. Judge Nealon distinguished himself early on in the practice of law. In 1960, less than a decade after joining the Pennsylvania bar, he was appointed to the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, the youngest such judge in the Commonwealth. Less than 3 years later, on December 13, 1962, President Kennedy appointed him to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and Judge Nealon became the youngest Federal District Court judge in the country. He went on to serve in this role for over 55 years. Judge Nealon was a brilliant jurist, committed to fairness and ``equal justice under law'' in every case for every party who appeared in his courtroom. He will be remembered for his work ethic and commitment to his family. In addition to leaving behind a legacy of judicial and community service, Judge Nealon is survived by his wife of 70 years, Jean, 5 of their 10 children, 30 grandchildren, 26 great- grandchildren, and numerous nieces and nephews. The Federal courthouse in Scranton, which bears his name, will ensure that his decades of service to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and our country will continue to inspire new generations of public servants.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to remember those killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT, in 2012, just 6 years ago. Tomorrow will be the anniversary of that horrible day, when America lost 20 first graders and 6 adults in one of the worst mass shootings in our Nation's history. Since 2012, I have kept--and I know others have done similar things to remind us--one page from a newspaper on my desk in the Russell Building. I will not show all of it, but here is the top half of it. It is obviously yellowed from 6 years. It just happens to be the Wall Street Journal, dated Monday, December 17, 2012. At the top of the page it says: Connecticut school shooting. The headline there just says two words: Shattered lives. Then it gives a photograph of almost every child and every adult. They missed a few because of the timing of this. But then it has a biography of each individual killed. As I said, 20 of them were children. We have to remember tragedies like this to remind ourselves of our obligation--on many issues, but this is certainly one of them. I wanted to start by reading the names of all of those 26 Americans who were killed on that day. I will just read through them, and after reading each name I will also note the age of the individual on that horrible day in December of 2012: Charlotte Bacon, 6 years old; Daniel Barden 7; Rachel D'Avino, 29; Olivia Engel, 6; Josephine Gay, 7; Dylan Hockley, 6; Dawn Lafferty Hochsprung, 47; Madeleine Hsu, 6; Catherine Hubbard, 6; Chase Kowalski, 7; Jesse Lewis, 6; Ana Marquez-Greene, 6; James Mattioli, 6; Grace McDonnell, 7; Anne Marie Murphy, 52; Emilie Parker, 6; Jack Pinto, 6; Noah Pozner, 6; Caroline Previdi, 6; Jessica Rekos, 6; Avielle Richman, 6; Lauren Rousseau, 30; Mary Sherlach, 56; Victoria Soto, 27; Benjamin Wheeler, 6; and, Allison Wyatt, age 6. Those are the 26 individuals. There are so many ways to express our sorrow and to continue mourning as we did as a nation. I can't even imagine what each family had to live through and still lives through today, and how that community had to endure in that moment of horror--those days of horror and mourning and sadness and all these years later. The great recording artist Bruce Springsteen, after the 9/11 attacks, wrote a number of songs reflecting upon that tragedy. One of the songs he wrote--at least the lyrics that I remember--probably capture the same sentiment that we all think about when we are thinking about that kind of a tragedy. The name of the song is ``You're Missing,'' and a refrain of the song goes like this: You're missing, when I shut out the lights. You're missing, when I close my eyes. You're missing, when I see the sun rise. I am sure that has been the circumstance for those families every day, missing the loved one--for 20 of those families missing a loved one who was age 6 or age 7, and for 6 other families missing an adult family member of various ages. We have a lot to do in this body, not only in the next couple of days but certainly as we start both the new year and a new Congress. This scourge of violence, which has consumed our country for so many years now, should be at the top of that list of priority issues we focus on. Just think about it this way: The 20 children who died at Sandy Hook would be in the seventh grade right now. As we still mourn, we must make sure that we come together to make sure no other family has to endure a tragedy like that. The shooting at Sandy Hook was a turning point for me as a public official and I am sure a turning point for many Americans about what our obligation is to respond to this problem. The tragedy in Connecticut fundamentally changed the way I view both our Nation's response to gun violence and my own responsibility as a public official. I believe that each of us has an obligation to help take action, to work as Members of the U.S. Senate. I would include Members of the House, of course, and the executive branch. We must continually ask ourselves a number of questions. One of those questions surely is, Is there nothing our Nation can do to try to prevent this kind of tragedy or other tragedies that we will note in a few moments? Is there nothing we can do to prevent this? There is no law, no action, no policy change on which we can come together to at least reduce the likelihood that we will have another mass shooting in a grade school or in a lot of other places around the country? Some people here in Washington seem to believe that there literally is nothing we can do, the most powerful country in the world that has solved some big problems. We haven't solved all of them. We have solved some pretty tough problems in this Chamber and in the other body, the House, working together on a number of big issues over the years. But on this one, some people in Washington just throw up their hands and say there is nothing we can do--absolutely not a single law that we can pass--other than enforce existing law; that that is all we can do, and we hope that enforcement will reduce the likelihood, but if it doesn't, then we just have to throw up our hands. I don't believe that. I don't think many Americans believe that no matter what side of the political aisle they are on. I believe we have an obligation to take a couple of steps. The first one ought to be easy because some of the data tells us that it is supported by 90 percent of Americans or maybe even more than 90 percent; that is, universal background checks. We undertook an effort in the Senate in 2013, in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre, and we made progress on getting bipartisan support for a universal background check bill, but we haven't done a lot since then in the Senate on that issue. That is one bill we could vote on in 2019. I hope the majority leader will schedule a debate on that bill--whatever version we have now in front of us--or will in the new Congress. We can schedule debate and have a vote. Obviously, Senators can vote any way they want, but let's have a debate and let's vote on universal background checks. Is that a magic wand which will wipe out this problem forever? No. Background checks will make it less likely that we will have the kinds of mass shootings we not only have endured as a nation but have grown, unfortunately, tragically accustomed to. I believe as well--and I know there are plenty of people who disagree with me--that we ought to have a debate and a vote on another issue: banning military-style weapons. I know. I understand that we have, by some estimates, double-figure millions of these weapons already on our streets. I get that, but does that mean we should continue down this road and have 20 million and then 25 million of those weapons on our streets and then 30, 40, 50, 60 million? Just throw up our hands and say: That is all we can do; that we have to have tens of millions of military-style weapons--weapons that belong on a battlefield, not on our streets in our communities and our neighborhoods. That would be a good debate to have on that bill. We ought to have a debate and a vote on a limitation on magazine capacity so we don't have one person who can spray hundreds of bullets in a matter of moments. Is there nothing we can do about that? The greatest country in the world can't do anything about these issues, these votes? How about preventing people on the terrorist watch list from getting their hands on a firearm? We made a determination after 9/11 that we were going to take certain steps--even against political pressure not to take certain steps--to protect our Nation from terrorists. One of them was, if you are a terrorist, we are going to do everything we can to prevent you from getting on an airplane, or if we have a reasonable suspicion that you are a terrorist, we are going to try to prevent you from being on an airplane so we don't have another 9/11. The same country that did that, so far, because of inaction by the Congress over many years, allows that same individual who is too dangerous--we have deemed them too dangerous--to get on an airplane, to get a firearm because we haven't yet plugged that loophole. We have tried a couple of times but not nearly enough. Let's at least have a debate on a few of these issues and have up-or- down votes. If you want to vote against them, fine, but let's not pretend that we are dealing with an issue when we don't even have a debate and don't even have votes. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, and I am sure it doesn't make sense to Americans, no matter what side of the debate they are on. We can't simply throw up our hands and do nothing as thousands of lives are lost each year. Why not try to do something to reduce that number? We need a sustained debate and a series of votes. It is a good time, by the way, coming up. New year. New Congress in 2019. A brandnew Congress. We can start fresh by putting these issues on the floor of the Senate. We need to make sure the American people know where their legislators--in this case, Federal legislators, Members of the House and Senate--stand so they can be held accountable. That is as American as anything we can do in this body. We need to do it for the children and the staff who were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School. We need to make sure their lives are remembered--not just in mourning, not just in recognition of a tragedy, but are actually remembered by way of our action, of taking action and doing something substantial that will reduce the likelihood. We have had too many of these tragedies in the last couple of years. I will do a partial list or a partial itemization of other tragedies-- not all of them but just a few. We know these cities by the tragedies that took place in them: Orlando, in a nightclub; Charleston, in a house of worship; Sutherland Springs; Las Vegas; Parkland; Thousand Oaks; in my home State of Pennsylvania almost 2 months ago now at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, where the killer came into another house of worship on a Saturday morning and gunned down people who range in age, in that circumstance--not children but range in age from midfifties all the way to late eighties, early nineties, in age-- 11 people. Whether it is Sandy Hook Elementary School or the Tree of Life synagogue or a lot of places in between--and I am mentioning just the ones since 2006, roughly; there were plenty before that--we have to not just remember but take action. In 2018--just 1 year not yet completed--so far in 2018, there have been 13,743 gun deaths and 26,581 injuries. This is a uniquely American problem. It doesn't happen around the world; it is happening here. That is yet another reason for the American people to demand that we do our job in the Senate, in the House, and in the executive branch. If it is a uniquely American problem, Americans should try to solve it or at least get on the road to solving it. I hope we would have a measure of satisfaction if we pass just one bill in 2019. Even if nothing else happens for years, maybe 25 years from now, we could prevent one school shooting, prevent just one shooting in a synagogue where 11 people lose their lives in a house of worship, prevent a school or another place in our community from being unfortunately etched in that wall of tragedy and loss and horror forever, the name of a town, the name of a community remembered only in some cases because of the violence that took place there. I will say it again. This is a uniquely American problem, and we have to try to solve it together. To say the status quo is unacceptable is a terrible understatement, but that is the truth. I think people understand that. I know this is an issue people on both sides care very deeply about. We haven't come together yet to take very much action. If you look at the record on taking action on gun violence--I hate to use the word, but it is true--it is pathetic in terms of Federal action. I am still hopeful that the American people will continue to demand more of all of us--both parties, both Houses, and two branches of the Federal Government coming together not just to mourn and to remember and to pay tribute and to offer prayers and condolences, but to take action, to do what Americans do when we are faced with a problem--take action, just as we did after 9/11. We didn't throw up our hands and say: This is just the new normal. We said: No, we are going to take action to try to stop it or at least reduce the likelihood. We can do the same on this issue of gun violence. Mr. President, 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. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about not the Mueller investigation as much as I want to talk about Robert Mueller himself because of the substantial responsibility that he has, and I think it is important for us to remind ourselves, as well as to remind our country, about his service at a time when he has often been attacked by folks in Washington. When I think of an individual like Robert Mueller, I think of two words: ``public service''--or maybe just one word: ``service.'' He was inspired, as many people know, to become a marine by one of his friends from the college lacrosse team he was on. This man's name was David Hackett, and he later died on the battlefield of Vietnam. Mr. Mueller said in a speech: One would have thought that the life of a Marine, and David's death in Vietnam, would argue strongly against following in his footsteps. But many of us saw in him the person we wanted to be. And a number of his friends, teammates, and associates joined the Marine Corps because of him, as did I. So said Robert Mueller about his friend David Hackett. To paraphrase the words of President Kennedy, Robert Mueller didn't join the Marine Corps because it was easy; he joined because it was hard. While many of his peers were seeking to avoid the horrors of the Vietnam conflict and the combat in Vietnam, Robert Mueller volunteered to face those horrors. That sense of duty is the essence of public service. Robert Mueller enlisted in the Marines just a few weeks after graduating from Princeton in 1966 and went through the demanding programs of the Army's Ranger School and Airborne School. He then spent a year in combat on the ground in the jungles of Vietnam, leading an infantry platoon. The Washington Post described the conditions the regiment faced as a ``hellscape'' of ``bloody jungle warfare.'' It was under these difficult circumstances that Mr. Mueller received the Bronze Star for ``heroic achievement'' after leading his fellow marines through an 8-hour battle where, under enemy fire, ``Second Lieutenant Mueller fearlessly moved from one position to another, directing the accurate counterfire of his men and shouting words of encouragement to them. . . . [H]e then skillfully supervised the evacuation of casualties from the hazardous fire area.'' Just 4 months later, he was shot in the leg when he responded to an ambush by enemy forces. He received the Navy Commendation Medal with a citation praising him for rushing to save his fellow marines while ``completely disregarding his own safety.'' That sense of serving a cause larger than himself is what led Robert Mueller to enlist in the Marines and what led him later to apply to law school so he could continue serving the country through our system of justice. He served in the U.S. States Attorney's Offices and the Justice Department for years, working his way up the chain of command and earning a reputation as a dogged and fair prosecutor committed to enforcing the rule of law. In 2001, he was confirmed unanimously by this body to serve as FBI Director and subsequently led the FBI's response to the September 11 attacks. In 2011, as his 10-year term was set to end, we in the Senate at that time voted 100 to 0 to extend his term until 2013. Mr. Mueller has not only earned the respect of public officials he has worked with, he has maintained that respect throughout decades of public service. There is no one better qualified to lead this Russia investigation in terms of intellect, experience, or character than Robert Mueller. A lot of Americans are glad he is leading this effort to find out what happened, how the Russians were able to interfere in our election. Robert Mueller and his team have already produced results, and their work has sent a powerful message to Russia--and to any other foreign or domestic entity that would interfere with our elections--that the United States will not tolerate any attack on our democracy. Mr. Mueller's investigation is critical to our national security, and it must be protected from interference by the President or anyone else. It is now more important than ever that the Senate pass legislation to protect the investigation and Mr. Mueller's job from interference of any kind. I call on the Senate once again to take a vote on the Special Council Independence and Integrity Act. 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 today to speak about a very special child, whose photo you see here on my left. Her name was Scarlett. Scarlett and her mother Stephanie are the people whom I will mostly talk about tonight. Stephanie was a former staffer in my Senate office, and Scarlett was, as you can tell from the photograph, a ray of sunshine for her parents, Stephanie and Ryan, and also for her extended family and for her many friends. That is how they describe Scarlett. She was their sunshine. Tragically, Scarlett passed away on January 8, 2017, at just 16 months old. Scarlett's mom Stephanie said the following about her daughter: Our little Scarlett lived up to her name. She was a little spitfire, strong and determined. She took in the world around her with such wonder. Her favorite things were books, blueberries, and our pets. Her favorite song was ``You Are My Sunshine.'' She was our sunshine. We lived and breathed for her, but shortly after midnight, very early on Sunday, January 8, all that ended. It didn't just end; it was shattered. Every shred of happiness we had and any semblance of the lives we knew before was demolished shortly after I entered her room to check on her that night. That is what Scarlett's mom, Stephanie, said in that horrific moment. In the time since Scarlett's death, as I and my current and former staff members who know Stephanie can attest, Stephanie and Ryan have been consumed--consumed--by the loss of their little girl. They did what any grieving parent would do. They sought answers about what caused Scarlett's death. Sadly, despite an autopsy and genetic testing, the only answer they got was that her death was ``unexplained''-- unexplained. They still don't know what caused her death. Stephanie and Ryan have endured so much pain--first, of course, because of their grief over losing Scarlett and, second, because they still don't know what caused her death. That means that Scarlett's death falls in the category known as sudden unexplained death in childhood, known by the acronym SUDC. Many people have never heard of sudden unexplained death in childhood, but it is estimated to be the fifth-leading cause of death for children between the ages of 1 and 4 years old. We are not doing enough to learn why these children are dying, and it is time that we take action. Sudden unexplained death in childhood too often has been ignored. Of course, the acronyms can be very confusing. Many of us are already familiar with SIDS--s-i-d-s--or sudden infant death syndrome. After the ``back to sleep'' campaigns of the 1990s that taught parents how to put their babies to sleep safely on their backs, we learned a lot more about that category as well. SIDS is part of a broader category of sudden unexpected infant death as opposed to unexplained. Unexpected is the broader category. I will be speaking mostly about the sudden unexplained category. The most prevalent cause of unexpected deaths in infants--and this is children under the age of 1 year old--is SIDS. One in three unexpected infant deaths is unexplained, and the remaining deaths are related to unsafe sleep. Similarly, sudden unexplained death in childhood--as I said before, SUDC, what took the life of Scarlett disproportionately impacts children between the ages of 1 and 4, beyond the age of 1, such that in 2016, more than half of all unexplained childhood deaths were in children in this age group, like Scarlett. We don't know why these infants and children have died, and we still don't know how to prevent future deaths. We don't know how many children are at risk even. As a parent, these numbers are horrifying and terrifying. Each one represents a beloved child, like Scarlett, who was taken from their family too soon. That is why I introduced the Scarlett's Sunshine on Sudden Unexpected Death Act, to shine light on this problem of unexpected and unexplained infant and childhood deaths. I am grateful to U.S. Representative Gwen Moore of Wisconsin for her work on this issue. I used her bill as a starting point for this new legislation. Representative Moore introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives. I am also grateful that Johnny Isakson and Sherrod Brown have cosponsored this new bill. The bill, Scarlett's Sunshine on Sudden Unexpected Death Act, will bring light to the darkness of these tragic and unexplained deaths. The bill provides resources to help standardize and improve investigations into and reporting data from sudden unexpected child and infant deaths and to enable full medical review of all--all--child and infant deaths. The bill also directs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to commission a study to advise on best practices for genetic testing that may identify the cause of death. We need this consistent and complete data about unexpected and unexplained childhood and infant deaths in order to drive research that can find the cause or causes and then to develop interventions and ways to prevent future deaths. The bill also creates a new grant program to support safe sleep, since we know preventable, sleep-related, infant deaths are still happening. Finally, the bill requires an annual report to Congress on the incidence of sudden unexplained infant and child deaths, a summary of actions the Department of Health and Human Services has taken, and any recommendations that the Department of Health and Human Services has developed to reduce these deaths. As Stephanie said at Scarlett's funeral: ``There is no measurement for the size of our love for you or the hole you leave behind.'' Nothing we do will bring Scarlett or other precious children, lost to unexpected death, back to their grieving families, but this legislation will be a big step forward in figuring out why these children are dying and what we can do to prevent it. Stephanie and Ryan's daughter, Scarlett's younger sister, is named Eliana. Eliana's name means ``daughter of the sun,'' and that is a tribute to the big sister she never met. To Ryan, Stephanie, Eliana, and to all the other families and friends of children taken from us too soon, we say to you: Although we cannot truly understand the awful gravity of your pain or the depth of your loss, we are listening to you, and we are listening to your plea for help. We want to bring the bright light of data, medical reviews, genetic testing, and other research to this problem. In other words, we want to bring some of Scarlett's sunshine to this cause. We are summoned by little Scarlett and other infants and children to take action. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, the Scarlett's Sunshine on Sudden Unexpected Death Act, and I ask for their support. 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 ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor, as I have many times in the last several years--and I know I am not alone in this--to talk about, unfortunately, yet another mass shooting. This one occurred in my home State--in Allegheny County, PA, in the southwestern corner of our State, in the city of Pittsburgh, in a community known as Squirrel Hill. I come here to do a couple of things--to honor the victims of this mass shooting and the individuals who were injured, of course; to offer condolences to the grieving families again; to express gratitude for the law enforcement and medical professionals who responded to the scene; and, of course, to stand with the community in the face of hate and terror. On this occasion, this deadly mass shooting occurred in one community, but it also occurred in a house of worship. It resulted in the deaths of 11 innocent Pennsylvanians. It left six people injured, including four law enforcement officers who were responding to the scene. It was a targeted, hateful attack on the Jewish community within the Squirrel Hill community in the city of Pittsburgh. It was an act of violence that we must work to ensure never happens again. It was just a couple of weeks ago, long before election day, on Saturday, October 27, that three congregations--the Tree of Life, the Dor Hadash, and the New Light--were engaged in Shabbat morning services at the Tree of Life Synagogue in the Squirrel Hill neighborhood, which is a residential part of the city of Pittsburgh. As these worshippers were engaged in services, what played out was the most deadly act of violence against the Jewish community in American history. These congregants were targeted for one reason--because of their religious beliefs, because they happened to be Jewish. Their lives were changed forever by one hateful act of terror, as were the lives of those who were injured. So our deepest condolences are with the 11 families of the victims of this attack. Here are the names of the 11: Joyce Fienberg, Richard Gottfried, Rose Mallinger, Jerry Rabinowitz, Cecil Rosenthal and his brother David Rosenthal, Bernice and Sylvan Simon, Daniel Stein, Melvin Wax, and Irving Younger. May their memories be blessings to their families and community. It is difficult to even begin to adequately express the hurt that this community has endured, the horror that these families have endured, and the hurt that is still part of this community. Maybe one of the best ways to convey not just our condolences and our sympathy but also our solidarity with those who faced that horror and that danger and that hate is to talk about what those folks did in that dark, dark hour. It literally was about an hour, maybe a little more than that, on that Saturday morning. We, of course, at this time--and so many have since that date--pay tribute to those in law enforcement who confronted the murderer with uncommon valor. We pay tribute, as well, to the emergency service professionals--nurses and doctors and others--who ministered to those who were wounded and tried their best to minister to those who were dying. All of these individuals--and it is impossible to name all of them whether they are in law enforcement or are medical professionals or are emergency personnel--were, at that moment, as they always are, servants in the most profound meaning of the word. These were servants who came forward to help in that darkness. They came forward to save and to comfort. As the great hymn ``The Servant Song'' tells us, these were servants who were holding the light for these individuals in the nighttime of their fear. That is what that song, ``The Servant Song,'' reminds us of. So, when a gunman with very powerful weapons was shooting directly at individuals--targeting them--in a house of worship, where there was no protection at all for those who were victims and for those who were targets but who survived and had to wait what must have seemed like an eternity for help because the gunman was in control of that scene for a period of time, they were in that nighttime of their fear. Those servants came forward to bring some light to that darkness, to bring light to that nighttime of their fear. People all over the world have marveled at the strength, the resolve, and the love of the people of Pittsburgh--a community, as they have said so many times since, that is stronger than hate and, I would argue, that is stronger than ever. We are thinking about those families. We are thinking about those who gave so much in that hour of tragedy and horror and death and darkness. We also have to do more than that. Commendation and sympathy and condolences and solidarity and being determined to try to prevent this from ever happening again is all important, but we have to do more. We have to also act--maybe it is better to say ``take action''--to enact commonsense policies, laws, and other policies that will at least reduce the likelihood that these acts of violence will, in fact, continue to occur. This problem of mass shootings is a uniquely American problem that has to be solved by the American people, of course, through their elected representatives at every level of government but, maybe most especially, by those who are here in the U.S. Senate and in the other body, the House of Representatives, in working with the executive branch. I believe we have to take action. No single law and no series of measures, even if they were to be enacted into law, will remove the possibility that these mass shootings and other examples of horrific gun violence will suddenly vanish from the Earth and never happen again. Yet there are steps we can take that will, for sure, reduce the likelihood. The point I have made all along is that we have to take enough action, even a series of actions, that might prevent one fewer of these incidents in which kids are killed in school, as we saw 6 years ago in Newtown, CT, at Sandy Hook Elementary School, or one less example of people being gunned down in a nightclub or in another school in Florida or now in a synagogue in Pittsburgh. What do we need to do? We could start with measures that have broad-based support. Some of them are supported by 80 to 90 percent of the American people. We could require universal background checks. I think that that is about a 90- to-10 issue, maybe. We could ban military-style assault weapons. There are millions of them on our streets already. There are weapons of war on our streets and in our communities. We could also limit high- capacity magazines that allow hundreds of rounds to be fired in just a matter of seconds or minutes. We must keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people--suspected terrorists and individuals convicted of hate crimes, stalking, domestic violence, and dating violence. These policies can't prevent every act of violence or replace what has been lost at the Tree of Life Synagogue or in communities across the Nation, the most recent, of course, being in California, but we can take action. I don't think it is in the best interest of the American people to surrender to this problem, to surrender to this uniquely American problem, and just throw up our hands and say that there is nothing we can do, as some might say, about mass shootings or that there is nothing we can do, some might argue, to prevent losing over 30,000 lives a year to gun violence. I think we can take action. I think we can do more. At a minimum, we have to try. All of the measures I have mentioned--you could add more, like plugging the loophole which says that if you are too dangerous to get on an airplane because you happen to be a terrorist or we have a reasonable suspicion, a well- grounded suspicion, that you are a terrorist and you can't get on an airplane, why would that same individual be allowed to have a weapon? It doesn't make a lot of sense. We have some work to do, as legislators and as Americans, to try to reduce the likelihood that these attacks will continue. None of the measures that I have outlined here today--and we could add more to the list--are in any way inconsistent with the Second Amendment or in any way would undermine the right of a law-abiding American to purchase a firearm and to use a firearm for self-protection or for hunting or whatever else. We have to take action at long last. It has been too long. There have been too many tragedies, too many lives lost, and the response by Congress for years now--you could even say for even decades--has been to throw up their hands and say: There is nothing we can do. I don't believe that about America--that the most powerful Nation in the world can do nothing on this issue. We need to do more. We need to debate it on this floor again, but do something we haven't done in a substantial way in at least 6 years, and that is to have votes on this floor that deal with this issue. We have to solve a lot of problems in the weeks that remain in this Congress and in the new Congress, but one of them is this: to begin to solve this problem from which only America has suffered. It is difficult, it is contentious, and it is certainly not a problem that has an easy solution, but to do nothing, which is basically what Congress has done for far too long, is not in the best interest of the American people. I would argue it is inconsistent with our values, and it is inconsistent with who we are. As we express condolences for those who have loved and lost--those families who have suffered either the loss of a loved one or are still suffering because a loved one is injured, the law enforcement who were injured in this incident--and as we commend and salute the good work of law enforcement, the good work of medical service professionals--those professionals who are on our streets every day, saving people--as we do all of that and offer those words of sympathy and condolences and commendation, let us also be determined as a people to begin to reduce the likelihood that we are going to be the only country in the world that continually suffers and endures mass shooting after mass shooting, losing lives all throughout these many years and just in the last couple of months. I think that is a challenge, but, also, solving that problem is a mission worthy of a great country. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to remember Dr. Richard Gottfried. Richard was 1 of the 11 people who was violently killed at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh's Squirrel Hill neighborhood. Richard Gottfried lived a full life and, in doing so, made this world a better place. Richard and his wife, Dr. Peg Durachko, both dentists, volunteered at the Catholic Charities free dental clinic, helping to ensure access to this vital care for all. Many of the people they helped were immigrants and refugees who had never been to a dentist. Richard, a member of the New Light Congregation, which shared space at Tree of Life, and Peg, a member of St. Athanasius Catholic Church, also helped to counsel couples preparing for marriage, wanting to aid and serve wherever they could. Richard Gottfried lived his life trying to affect positive change and, through that commitment and dedication, had a direct, positive impact on many lives, a legacy that will endure for years to come.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to remember Rose Mallinger. Rose was 1 of the 11 people who was violently killed at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh's Squirrel Hill neighborhood. Maya Angelou once said, ``My mission in life is not merely to survive, but to thrive; and to do so with some passion, some compassion, some humor, and some style.'' By all accounts, Rose Mallinger lived that life. Ninety-seven when she died last month, everyone described Rose as full of life and destined to live to be at least 100 years old. The Tree of Life was the center of her days, and she had been a member of the congregation for over 60 years. Rose Mallinger was an inspiration to all who met her, and that grace, that vivaciousness of spirit, will live on in the lives she touched.