Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to address an issue we are confronting in the Senate, and it is an issue folks in Pennsylvania and across the country are dealing with every day; that is, the opioid crisis. There are a lot of ways to describe this crisis. I am pleased to be able to talk about this issue with two of my colleagues who will be following me in succession after my remarks have concluded. This Senator wants to thank, in a particular way, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Shaheen, and our leadership for bringing this issue to the forefront within our caucus and here in the Senate. I know the effort to pass the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act--known by the acronym CARA--is a bipartisan effort. I certainly appreciate that. In the case of Senator Whitehouse, he brings a deep reservoir of experience as a Federal prosecutor, U.S. attorney, as well as the attorney general of Rhode Island. He brings a law enforcement set of experience as well as his caring and concern about those who have addiction issues. We appreciate his leadership. Senator Brown has worked on this for many years in the Senate and as a Member of the House of Representatives. This is an issue that confronts all of us in our States. Our efforts have to be commensurate to match the severity of the problem. This week the Senate missed an important opportunity to invest substantial resources in our Nation's heroin crisis. The amendment offered by Senators Shaheen and Whitehouse would have provided $600 million in emergency funding to aid public health professionals and law enforcement, the two main segments of our society that deal with the challenge of addiction on a daily basis. That amendment was defeated, and I think that was the wrong conclusion for the Senate and wrong for the country. While the Senate failed to act on this amendment, there is no reason we shouldn't find other opportunities to invest in anti-heroin strategies or, expressed another way, strategies that will lessen or reduce the likelihood that more people will be addicted to some opioid which often leads to other kinds of challenges such as heroin. It too often leads not just to the darkness of addiction but literally to the darkness of death itself. We have some work to do. We know we can pass the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, the CARA Act, as I mentioned before. That is good, but it is not nearly enough. We have to do more than simply pass good legislation that will authorize policies to better confront the challenge. That will not be enough. If we have in place new programs, new approaches, and new strategies, that is a measure of progress, but we can't ask medical professionals to do more to treat addiction if they don't have the resources. We cannot ask law enforcement to do more if they don't have the resources. Heroin overdose deaths have increased 244 percent from 2007 to 2013. In roughly a 6-year timeframe, heroin overdose deaths are up 244 percent. It is hard to even comprehend that kind of increase of a death statistic--not just a number but a number that indicates the increase in the number of deaths. That alone should motivate us to do everything possible to do whatever it takes. Whatever authority, whatever policy, whatever dollars we need to invest in this, we have to do that. There are lots of other numbers, and sometimes you can get lost in reciting the numbers. I will mention a few that are relevant to Pennsylvania before I conclude. In addition to just passing the CARA bill, we ought to focus on taking measurable steps to solve the crisis. We don't want to just address the issue, confront the challenge, we want to solve the crisis. It will not happen in 1 year, and it will not happen because of one bill or one policy, but we have to put every possible resource or tool on the table to actually solve the crisis. There are lots of ways to illustrate the degree of the problem. I will talk about a couple of communities in Pennsylvania, just by way of example. The Washington Post--a great newspaper here--went to Washington, PA. We have a county and city just below the city of Pittsburgh, just south of Pittsburgh, Washington County and the city of Washington. The Post went there last summer and began to interview people at the local level. In one of the more stunning statistics they found in their reporting, in 70 minutes there were eight overdoses related to heroin--in this case not yet deaths but overdoses. A newspaper could track in 1 hour 10 minutes, eight overdoses in one community in one State. Then they tracked it over a 2-day timeframe. In 48 hours there were 25 overdoses in Washington County, PA, and 3 deaths, in a 48-hour period. I cite that not just for the compelling nature of those numbers but because of where it happened. This is not happening in communities we used to think of as having a major heroin or drug addiction problem. We tended to think of it, at least in my lifetime, as being an urban issue that big cities have this problem and less so in small towns, suburbs, and rural communities. In this case, this horror, this evil knows no geographic or class boundaries. It is happening in big cities and very small towns in Pennsylvania. It is happening in suburban communities, high- and low-income communities and in middle-income communities. It is happening everywhere. There is no escaping it. If it is happening in places like Washington County--the city of Washington, PA, is not a big city but a moderate-sized city. Other parts of that county tend to be more rural, small towns to rural. If it is happening there in those kinds of numbers, in 70 minutes or 48 hours, overdoses and overdose deaths, that gives you an indication of the gravity of the problem. The Coroners Association in Pennsylvania, which has to track the number of deaths in their counties, reported that in just over a few years in Pennsylvania, the number of deaths from overdoses went from less than 50 to hundreds of deaths in just a couple of years. The gravity of this problem is self-evident. It is not good enough to diagnose the problem and recite statistics. We have to solve the crisis. There is no doubt this is a huge issue for the country. By not passing the funding that we tried to pass, we are missing a chance to support, for example, the substance abuse prevention and treatment block grant, the so-called SABG, or the SA block grant. That is an existing program--an existing block grant program--that works. The only good news here, in this debate about what policy to put in place, is that local officials know what they are doing. Addiction and medical professionals know exactly what to do. They know exactly what works. They know exactly what they need. What they are asking us for is a little bit of policy or a significant amount of policy, maybe. But they are also asking for research and resources, and we have to give those resources to them. I conclude with the following. We know that good treatment works. All the professionals tells us it works. We know so much more today than we did 25 years ago about what works. We know that good treatment works. It takes a long time. There is no 90-day program here because it takes a lot longer than that. So we know that for sure. There is no dispute about that. We also know that good treatment costs money. You cannot just have good intentions here. Lifesaving overdose reversal drugs such as naloxone cost money. The good news is we have a drug to reverse the adverse impact of an overdose, and yet a lot of communities cannot afford to get this very important drug called naloxone, the so-called reversal drug as some call it. Intercepting drugs before they reach our streets costs money. The worse this epidemic gets, the more these services are in demand. So Congress--the Senate and the House of Representatives--must provide additional funding to make sure local communities can meet the demand. We know that investing in programs that treat addiction and save lives is an abiding obligation.

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional seconds.

Mr. CASEY. It is an abiding obligation that we must fulfill. We have to tackle this problem. We can't do it without resources. 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. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to remember Justice Antonin Scalia and thank him for his service to the Supreme Court and the country. Justice Scalia was a first-generation American, and his life was a testament to the American dream. A student of history and the law, Antonin Scalia had a commitment to public service that culminated in his appointment as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan in 1986. Justice Scalia served on the Court for almost 30 years and in that time made many important contributions to our legal system. While he had firm convictions, he also loved people and never let ideas get in the way of friendship, most notably with fellow Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Senator Margaret Chase Smith once said: ``Public service must be more than doing a job efficiently and honestly. It must be a complete dedication to the people and to the nation.'' Justice Scalia believed in that complete dedication. Our thoughts and prayers remain with his family at this time, and we thank him and them for his service.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I thank the senior Senator from Vermont for the opportunity to speak. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise to discuss the United States and coalition strategy to bring about a lasting defeat of the terrorist group ISIS, often known by different acronyms, such as ISIL, as well as Daesh. I will use the acronym ISIS. We know that ISIS proposes a direct threat to our partners in the Middle East and is exporting its distorted, hateful ideology to other nations, including here in the United States. Beginning in 2014, I have pressed the administration to take action against the financial and facilitation networks that support ISIS. The administration has done good work, but much more remains to be done. In mid-February, I traveled to a number of countries in the region, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey to conduct oversight of our strategy to cut off the financial networks that support terrorist groups like ISIS. I found that the events of the last 2 years have brought the issue of terrorism financing into sharper focus, and certainly into sharper focus for the countries in the region. ISIS attacks in places like Saudi Arabia and Qatar should be a wakeup call for gulf countries. Terrorist financiers not only support ISIS, but they present a direct threat to their own internal security and stability--the security and stability of these gulf countries--as well as other countries the world over. While coalition partners are taking steps in the right direction, much more work remains to be done. We need to see more investigations turn into more arrests, more prosecutions, more sentencing, and more accountability in these countries that will take these criminals and terrorists off the streets. It also became clear to me on my visit to the region that we need to improve upon the international architecture that cuts off terrorist financiers and facilitators from the international financial system. As a first step, countries should seek to meet the requirements to be a member in good standing of the Financial Action Task Force, known by the acronym FATF. This is a multinational, intergovernmental organization tasked with addressing money laundering and financial crimes. Countries also need to take steps to address the ways terrorist financiers use the black market and the gray market to facilitate their work. For example, in Turkey, my last stop on my visit to the region, I came away with the impression that the Turkish Government is not adequately prioritizing efforts to stop foreign fighter movements and the illicit smuggling of cash, oil, antiquities, and IED precursor components across its southern border. As terrorist financiers' tactics evolve, our strategies must improve and respond. For example, more work needs to be done to regulate and to cut off the informal exchange houses in countries bordering ISIS-occupied territory, which may be the primary way that ISIS gains access to the international financial system. Much more work remains to be done, and the United States should continue leading the effort. At every stop, I was impressed by the good work of our U.S. military personnel and diplomats. One of the highlights of my trip was the afternoon I spent at the Al Udeid Air Base in Doha. I spent time at the Combined Air Operations Center, known as the CAOC, where elements from all U.S. services and representatives of many of our coalition partners worked together to coordinate and execute air operations against ISIS. I also received a classified briefing from the AFCENT commander, Lt. Gen. Brown, which, of course, I cannot detail here. But General Brown has said publicly: ``Successful strikes on oil facilities and on monetary centers have resulted in Daesh cutting pay to their fighters and increased the amount of money available to conduct and fund their operations.'' This is an important development. It is important to note that U.S.- led air strikes are having a profound impact on ISIS's financial operations. As lawmakers, we must continue to critically evaluate and develop constructive policies to bring about a lasting defeat of ISIS. We cannot abdicate our oversight responsibilities. To my colleagues who say we are doing ``nothing'' to fight ISIS, I encourage them to go to a place like the Al Udeid Air Base, meet directly with senior leaders who are bringing the fight to ISIS, and see firsthand the incredible work of our servicemembers, just as I did in the middle of February. We need to hear directly from military commanders and national security experts before offering prescriptions like increasing troop levels in Iraq or expanding the mission sets our military is currently executing. We owe it to these men and women to have a robust, bipartisan debate about this strategy and to vote on an authorization for the use of military force, vote on legislation to cut off financing, vote on bills to promote humanitarian aid--all of the elements of this strategy. Rather than conducting oversight by sound bite and oversight by categorical condemnation, let's have a serious debate on this critical national security issue. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I, too, rise this evening to discuss the vacancy on the Supreme Court and the need for the Senate to do its job and give fair consideration to any nominee made by President Obama to fill this seat on the Supreme Court. Many of my Republican colleagues have vowed to block any nominee out of hand, and every single Republican member of the Judiciary Committee has likewise vowed to refuse any nominee a fair hearing. The Senate majority leader, along with several other Republican Senators, went as far to say they would not even meet with the nominee. I am not sure I ever heard anything like that in my 9 years in the Senate, going on 10. This is inconsistent, totally inconsistent with our duty as U.S. Senators. Let me start tonight by saying to my Republican colleagues, respectfully: Do your job. Do your job, consider this nominee, and then vote whichever way you want. We know the Supreme Court cannot permanently function as the Constitution intends with only eight members. Last week I asked questions of a panel of experts, constitutional scholars, including Georgetown law professor Peter Edelman at a steering committee hearing in the Senate. These constitutional experts confirmed that because split decisions defer to the holding of the lower court, it is entirely possible we could see a string of split decisions that would undermine the primary purpose of the Supreme Court; that is, to resolve differences in the opinions coming out of the various circuit courts across the country. This is no doubt why the Constitution provides specific instructions on filling Supreme Court vacancies. Article II, section 2 of the Constitution states, in part, ``[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall Appoint . . . Judges of the Supreme Court.'' In both instances, the word ``shall'' is used. There is no equivocation. It doesn't say ``shall appoint at a certain time in a presidency'' or ``may appoint.'' It is very clear from the Constitution what the Senate must do and what the President must do. Barack Obama is the President of the United States. According to the Constitution, in the event of a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, the President of the United States shall nominate a replacement. Nothing more needs to be said to counter the, what I would argue, outrageous calls for the President to refrain from nominating a replacement simply because his 323 days left in office are fewer than 365 days. To refrain would violate the letter of the Constitution. Republican Senators, for whatever reason, seem to disagree with the original intent of the Framers in this situation. Often those same Republican Senators come to the floor and make floor statements inciting the Constitution, but now they would completely ignore a constitutional directive. The Constitution is also clear with respect to the Senate's duty to advise and consent on the President's nominee. No sincere reading could lead to the conclusion that the Senate would be within its rights and upholding its responsibility if it refused any potential nominee fair consideration. My Republican colleagues argue they are absolved of their responsibility to give fair consideration to a nominee simply because the Senate is constitutionally allowed to withhold its consent. That is one argument. It doesn't make sense, but that is the argument they make. The other argument is that ``we should let the American people decide'' by refusing to consider any nominee until the next President takes office. This denies precedent. Justice Kennedy was confirmed in the last year of President Ronald Reagan's final term under a Democratic Senate, and the Senate has confirmed 17 Supreme Court nominees in Presidential election years. This point of view also neglects the obvious fact that the American people already decided in twice electing Barack Obama to be our President. Both the President and his office deserve to be treated with respect. Denying the President's legitimate authority to nominate a candidate for Supreme Court is more than just an irresponsible attempt to score political points; it is a distortion of the separation of powers unprecedented in modern times. Senate Republicans have not been granted authority to prematurely terminate Presidential powers. They have not been granted that authority. The Senate has taken action on every Supreme Court nominee in the last 100 years, regardless of whether the nomination was made in a Presidential election year, and not since the Civil War has the Senate taken longer than a year to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. These nominees have always been seen as entitled to timely consideration as well. Since 1975, the Senate has taken an average of just 70 days from the date of nomination to the date of confirmation. Like many Senators here--virtually every Senator who serves in this body receives mail all the time from our constituents. On this issue, I have received thousands of letters urging the Senate to fulfill its duty and give fair consideration to the Supreme Court nominee that the President chooses. One particular letter came from a woman by the name of Jane from Southeastern Pennsylvania, a community outside of Philadelphia. The letter Jane sent me was profound in its simplicity. Jane said that having an understaffed Court would be ``unfair to the process of justice.'' Jane's words, not mine. A fully functioning Supreme Court is not about obscure details of Senate procedure to Jane. It is about something more than that. To her, one of my constituents, it is also not about who said what 10 years ago, nor is it about Presidential politics. It is about something else. Access to justice is what matters to Jane. It is what should matter to every Senator. Jane ended this letter she sent me with a reminder that I will repeat in the hope that my Republican colleagues will take it to heart, as I did. Jane said the ``opportunity to take part in a Justice's nomination is a privilege and deserves respect.'' I agree. Consideration and casting a vote regarding a Supreme Court nominee nominated by the President of the United States to serve as one of only nine Justices on the Supreme Court, you bet, that is a privilege and it deserves respect. To my Republican colleagues, I say, again, do your job, as I must do my job, and give this duty that you have--the duty to consider and to vote on a Supreme Court nominee--this rare privilege, the respect it deserves. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today, as I have every year since I came to the Senate, in commemoration of Black History Month, to recognize an individual who has made a considerable contribution to society and the African-American community. Today, we honor the Reverend Dr. W. Wilson Goode, Sr., a trailblazing figure whose public service and private works have touched lives in Pennsylvania and around the country. Dr. Goode was born to tenant farmers in North Carolina, rose to become the first African-American mayor of Philadelphia, and now runs a nationally renowned organization called Amachi that mentors children whose parents have been incarcerated. Wilson Goode's story is a story of faith and perseverance and also provides an appropriate backdrop this Black History Month to talk about some of the barriers standing in the way of young people in this country today. Dr. Goode has dedicated his life after leaving elected public office to Amachi because, in his words, in these communities, ``the children were invisible.'' This ethos--a commitment to serving those whom the Bible calls ``the least of these''--has guided Dr. Goode's life and career since long before he helped organize Amachi. Empowering young people to achieve their potential is personal for Dr. Goode, who had to overcome a series of roadblocks himself growing up in the Jim Crow South. Dr. Goode went to segregated lower schools in Northampton County, NC, and Greensville County, VA, before moving to Philadelphia at the age of 16. He arrived in Philadelphia on the first Monday in January in 1954. That same Monday 30 years later, this sharecroppers' son, who grew up drinking from separate fountains and eating at separate counters, was sworn in as the first African-American mayor of Philadelphia. In the intervening years, Dr. Goode's career proved a testament to all that can go right when young people are allowed a fair chance to succeed based purely, as a great man once said, on the ``content of their character.'' Dr. Goode graduated from John Bartram High School in Philadelphia in 1957 and went on to earn a bachelor's degree from Morgan State University, a master's degree from the University of Pennsylvania, and a doctorate of ministry from Palmer Theological Seminary. He also served as an officer in the U.S. Army for 2 years. Along the way, Wilson Goode helped found the Black Political Forum, a Philadelphia-based group that brought together a coalition of Black community and business leaders to elect African Americans to public office. The forum transformed the political landscape in the city and Dr. Goode's career along with it. Dr. Goode was later chosen as Pennsylvania's first Black member of the Public Utilities Commission. In less than 6 months, he rose to become the first Black chairman of the PUC and soon thereafter was recruited to become the managing director of the city of Philadelphia under Mayor Bill Green in 1980. When Mayor Green did not seek reelection in 1983, Wilson Goode ran, won the election, and was sworn in as the first African-American mayor of Philadelphia on January 2, 1984, exactly 30 years after he first set foot in the city. During his two terms in office, Dr. Goode accomplished a great deal. He worked to transform the city's skyline, helping businesses to grow and create jobs. He helped to level the playing field for minorities to work in city government and minority-run businesses to win government contracts. He created the Mayor's Commission on Literacy, which has now helped over 550,000 Philadelphians get the skills they need to live productive lives. He created the Philadelphia Anti-Graffiti Network, PAGN, and the Mural Arts Program, two pioneering programs to make Philadelphia a nicer place to live and work. And he always looked to help those who needed it most, whether through his consistent advocacy for AIDS support programming or through his tireless efforts to reduce the number of homeless people living on the streets. The latter goal still animates him today--he is the chairman and CEO of Self, Inc., a nonprofit dedicated to serving homeless men and women. Dr. Goode left the mayor's office after two terms in 1992, but his commitment to public service remained. He went on to work as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Education in the Clinton Administration. There, he devoted himself to the task of improving our education system for 7 years until a unique opportunity presented itself. John J. DiIulio, Jr., President Bush's first director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, invited Dr. Goode to lead a mentoring organization that would later be called Amachi. Amachi's model, which is based on DiIulio's research, is quite simple: identify neighborhoods disproportionately impacted by incarceration and seek out children living in those neighborhoods to mentor. Amachi matches one mentor and one child for at least 1 hour, at least once a week, for at least 1 year. The goals are equally simple: it is a success if, after a year, the kids improve their school attendance, their grades, their behavior, and their relationships with the adults in their lives. Part of the reason for Amachi's success is its simplicity. It makes sense. The real power of the Amachi philosophy comes from its inherent recognition of how much young people can achieve with a consistently positive and loving mentoring presence in their lives. And young people growing up in communities impacted by over-incarceration, the invisible children that Dr. Goode takes the time to see, stand to benefit most. Amachi now receives Federal, State, and private funding, but it has modest roots. To find the first mentors, Dr. Goode walked around throughout Philadelphia, neighborhood by neighborhood, to community churches where he would recite neighborhood statistics on incarceration to local pastors. The terrible reality was that one in nine Black children has a parent in prison, compared to 1 in 57 white children-- one in nine. People of faith were interested in mentoring because two out of three families with an incarcerated member are unable to meet their basic needs and since 50 percent of the over 2.5 million children with an incarcerated parent in this country are age 9 or younger. These numbers motivated Wilson Goode to recruit his mentors and to travel to prisons seeking parents whose kids he could help. This is what he means when he says he is ``on a rescue mission.'' Standing in front of these prisoners, his message was simple: ``I am here on behalf of your children.'' And they believed him. He recruited 500 children his first year. Maybe they believed him in part because he could relate to these challenges--his own father was sent to prison when he was a teenager. His mother worked hard to make ends meet while Wilson Goode sought refuge in his church and in God. He found it, and now he works to provide the same refuge to young people in need. Doctor Goode's story perfectly embodies the idea of Amachi. Amachi is a West African word that means: ``who knows but what God has brought us through this child.'' Who knew that Dr. Goode, who grew up without electricity, who saw his father imprisoned in his adolescence, who gazed up at the leadership in his city and saw no one who looked like him, would be elected mayor of one of America's largest cities. ``Who knows but what God has brought us through this child.'' I have often said that every child is born with a light inside them, and it is our obligation to make sure that that light burns as brightly as the full measure of his or her potential. Dr. Goode's work with Amachi is a testament to this idea. But as we commemorate Black History Month, we must acknowledge that reality is unkind to this worthy aspiration for all our children: in this country, nearly half of Black men are arrested by the time they hit their mid-20s, and Black men are six times more likely to be incarcerated than White men, a worse disparity than in the 1960s. This means that the bright shining light of potential for an African- American child is too often extinguished by the darkness of a jail cell. Looking at the system can be abstract and overwhelming--it is hard to see a child's potential from 30,000 feet. So Dr. Goode works on the ground--because he knows we have to break this cycle. Today Amachi- modeled programs have helped over 300,000 children in more than 250 cities nationwide. Maybe this is what Dr. King meant when he talked about ``dangerous unselfishness.'' Dr. Goode is up against an abstract and overwhelming system, but wields from the goodness of his heart the power to disrupt the status quo. Dr. Goode has faith that, in the months and years to come, we will see our criminal justice system reshaped to be fairer and more effective in targeting the people who pose the most danger to society. He has faith that we will make progress in helping those released from prison more easily reintegrate into their communities. But as he often says, ``no entry is the best reentry plan.'' So his work continues. Every day Amachi-trained mentors work to help thousands of children overcome the wide variety of challenges related to having a parent in prison or living in an area with a high rate of incarceration. In addition to the common financial struggles, these kids need help navigating the relationship changes that often take place when a loved one is sent to or returns from prison; or channeling powerful and confusing emotions into constructive activities; or overcoming the stigma that comes with having an incarcerated parent. What began as a local partnership between faith-based organizations has expanded to include volunteer mentors from a variety of sources on a national scale. All of this can be traced to Dr. Goode's deeply held belief that God has a very special interest in how we treat our children and that helping the children who need it most is God's work. His conviction has earned him great acclaim, whether through receiving the Civic Ventures Purpose Prize, the Philadelphia Inquirer's Citizen of the Year Award, or being honored by the White House as a Champion of Change. But I imagine the biggest reward for Dr. Goode is knowing he has created something lasting that will benefit generations to come. There are more than 81,000 children with a parent in prison in Pennsylvania. How many future doctors, lawyers or CEOs, preachers, teachers or Presidents may be among these children? They have infinite potential, and with God in his heart, the Reverend Dr. W. Wilson Goode, Sr., has stood alongside them. On the Senate floor today, we express our profound gratitude for his service on behalf of the children of Philadelphia, our Commonwealth and our country. Thank you.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business and also to be allotted time beyond 10 minutes.

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 this evening to talk about childcare, in particular one piece of legislation which I have introduced today, S. 2539, but also to talk more broadly about the critical need in our country for more options, more opportunities for families--especially low-income families--to be able to afford high- quality childcare. The bill that was introduced today is the Child Care Access to Resources for Early Learning Act. Of course, the acronym or shorthand for the bill is the Child CARE Act, standing for the words in the bill that focus on resources and in particular resources for early learning. It is this Senator's belief, and I think the evidence is abundantly clear over time whenever this issue is studied, that in terms of the positive impact of early care and learning of a child, the evidence tells us over and over again that if kids learn more now, they will literally earn more later. That connection between learning and earning is compelling, and I think it is an essential part of the debate. Early education and care for a young child has an impact on all of our lives when it comes to the economy. We know now from the evidence that high-quality early learning contributes to a reduction in need for special education. It also helps to lower juvenile justice rates. It also helps to improve health outcomes over time. It also increases high school graduation and college matriculation rates. For some children from low-income households, a lot of these studies have also shown that by the age of 3, they will have heard 30 million fewer words than their more affluent peers. Even before they enter kindergarten, this so-called word gap means they are already far behind. The income level of the household can often determine how many words that child has heard in his or her lifetime. Of course, the reason it is such a big number is because the words get repeated, but even when you factor in the repeating of words over and over again, just imagine how far behind they are if they are behind by 30 million words. If it were 5 million words, that would be a substantial gap, but, of course, it is much worse than that. I believe and I think the evidence shows that in the decades to come, the strength of our economy and the fiscal stability of our Nation will depend on the viability and vitality of our future workforce. I think that is evident from the research. But, again, that connection between early learning and the earning potential of that individual is abundant. Unfortunately, for many families, the need is still substantially great. Just last fall, Pennsylvania alone had a waiting list of 7,000 families who qualified for childcare vouchers but did not receive them. In other words, in one State there were 7,000 families who were eligible for these vouchers and did not receive them. That story, unfortunately, is playing out across the country. According to data from the Department of Health and Human Services, less than 1 in 10 children nationwide under the age of 4 received childcare assistance. In Pennsylvania it is about 15 percent. Just think about that-- nationwide, 1 in 10 is eligible for this kind of help and is not receiving it. Child Care Aware--one of the many groups who helped with the legislation I just mentioned, the Child CARE Act--tells us that particularly in urban and rural communities, there is a severe shortage of high-quality or licensed childcare facilities. In Pennsylvania, where we have a significant State investment in childcare, only 3.5 percent of childcare slots for children birth to age 4 years old are in the highest quality programs. For many families who can even find care, the cost is very burdensome. For most families, childcare is often the second most costly expense, behind only housing. Just imagine that--the second highest expense in the life of a family for far too many families is childcare, second only to housing. In 2014, in more than half of the United States, a year of childcare costs more than a year of college tuition at a public college. That is another stunning comparison. We hear it all the time from real people--not just numbers or studies, we hear it from real people. Last week when we were discussing the bill, the Child CARE Act, we heard from a Washington, DC, Metropolitan Police officer who also happens to be a parent. Her name is Zunnobia, and she told us how much there is a struggle for hard- working, even middle-class families who just want the best for their children, how difficult that struggle is to find quality, affordable childcare for early care and learning. This police officer also told me and told those in the room how all too often in her work as a police officer, she sees teenagers or young people who did not have the benefit of high-quality care and early learning. This is another example from Pennsylvania. This is what Deanna, a parent, tells us, and I am quoting just in part: Each month, with two children in daycare, our payment exceeded our mortgage payment. So it is not the second highest cost but the highest cost in her household. Deanna continues: Some months we paid for daycare with our home equity line of credit. It took us 2 years to pay off the debt we acquired. Parents with young children are really struggling. It is a no-win situation. That is what Deanna, a parent from Pennsylvania, tells us. Christina, another Pennsylvanian, a parent, told us that the cost of ``daycare is bringing us straight to foreclosure because we cannot afford our mortgage, groceries, diapers, and gas for our one car.'' So this is the real world and this is the real life of a struggling family but especially struggling--even in a recovery--with the cost of childcare. Let me talk for a moment about the component parts of the act. The Child CARE Act is legislation that will ensure that families with infants and toddlers who are living at or below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level, which we know is approximately $40,000 for a family of three--it will help those families who need childcare have access to that high-quality care. The act will further the purposes of the child care and development block grant by raising quality standards and by providing resources necessary to make those higher quality standards a reality and available to families across the Nation. Over a 10-year period, we estimate that the legislation could help over 1 million additional children under the age of 4 gain access to high- quality childcare. Part of achieving higher quality care is ensuring that childcare providers are receiving an appropriate level of support and that childcare workers are compensated fairly for their expertise. Unfortunately, across the Nation, the average childcare worker often makes below poverty wages. According to the 2013 National Survey of Early Care and Education, the median wage for center-based childcare staff was $9.30 an hour, about $19,000 a year. Just imagine that. The people who we believe are the best qualified and the most dedicated to taking care of our children, who will give them that early care and the learning that goes with it, the people whom we entrust with our most treasured asset, our children, in too many places in this country, those same workers are making just $19,000 a year. This means that childcare workers on average make less than parking lot attendants, less than manicurists, and less than massage therapists. So if we really care about our children, I think we would pay them more than some of the occupations I just mentioned. Caring for and nurturing infants and toddlers requires specialized knowledge and competencies that are not easily developed and should not be taken for granted. I believe and I think most Members of Congress, either in the Senate or in the House, believe that our children deserve quality. They deserve quality care and learning, but they especially deserve the quality that comes with someone who is paid an adequate wage and has a level of expertise and competency to provide that child with the kind of early care and learning she has a right to expect. Childcare funding is critically important not only to families in Pennsylvania and across the Nation, but, of course, it is critical if we are going to meet that demand that our workforce must meet. The children who learn more now will earn more later. We also know that this legislation is an opportunity to finally, at long last, make that historic commitment to these same families. We know the return on investment, if that is all someone wants to focus on, is return on investment. I know some people like numbers sometimes better than testimonials from parents. But if your only concern is return on investment, this is a good deal. Return on investment in terms of high-quality early care and learning is as high as $17 for $1. That is a pretty good deal anywhere in the country. We want to emphasize the return on investment, but I also believe at the same time that we have to focus on the life of that child and that child's prospects for future employment to contribute to our economy. We have to make this issue a priority. If we really care about economic growth, GDP growth, competing in a world economy, and having a skilled workforce, all those high aspirations, all those goals we talk about a lot, it starts with early care and learning. A child cannot earn what she should be able to earn if she doesn't have the opportunity for early care and learning--high-quality early care and learning. We can spend up to $40,000 a year on incarceration and thousands on drug treatment and/or special education or we can spend a small fraction of that now on early care and learning and give children both a healthy and a smart start in life. I urge my colleagues, when it comes before them, to support the Child CARE Act that has been introduced today. Mr. President, let me conclude with some brief comments about another related issue for our kids--lead poisoning. What has happened in Flint, MI, is both horrific and inexcusable. No one should accept any excuse for what happened there. I commend Senator Stabenow and Senator Peters for shining a light on what occurred in their home State. But, unfortunately, this is an issue that involves not just the State of Michigan, not just the city of Flint, this is a nationwide problem, especially on the eastern seaboard. Unfortunately, many communities around the country have numbers that are even worse, even higher than the Flint numbers. By one example, Pennsylvania--one of the largest States in the Union--18 cities in Pennsylvania are reporting higher levels of lead exposure among children than Flint. Let me say that again--higher levels than Flint. In Flint, 3.2 percent of children exceeded the danger threshold for lead exposure, tested levels of 5 or more micrograms per deciliter of blood. So 5 or more micrograms is the danger level, and Flint was at 3.2. Where were some cities in Pennsylvania that, as I said, have higher numbers? Instead of being at 5 or 3.2, this is what we see in Pennsylvania: Allentown, 23; Altoona, 20.5; my hometown of Scranton, 20 percent; Philadelphia and Pittsburgh--our largest cities, the two largest cities and the most urban parts of our State--were at 10 and 8 respectively, which is lower than the other Pennsylvania cities but still higher than Flint. In Pennsylvania, the primary source for childhood lead poisoning is not water but, rather, deteriorating infrastructure and exposure to the remnants of lead-based paint, paint dust, and chips. That is a problem in our State, but there are other States, especially on the eastern seaboard, that have a similar problem. We must ensure that children who have been exposed to high levels of lead receive all--and I mean that literally--all of the followup services they need to reach their full potential. Whether that is remedial, medical, or educational, we need to be there for those children. I supported funding for the Centers for Disease Control's Healthy Homes and Lead Poisoning Prevention Program, which supports State and local public health departments working to identify cases of childhood lead exposure. But that is just but one step. We have a lot more to do on this issue. I will conclude by saying that we should take action on childcare to make sure that it is affordable and that it is of a high quality so that especially poor children can learn more now and earn more later. It is very difficult to learn, grow, and succeed if you have the disadvantage of not only not having childcare and early learning but the additional burden of high levels of lead. These are challenges that we face as a country, and these are challenges that both Houses and both parties must confront. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the distinguished career of the Honorable John J. Driscoll who retired on December 31, 2015, as a senior judge from the Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas. His distinctive career as an elected public official spans more than three decades and is marked by excellence, dedication, hard work, and a genuine love for serving others. Improving the lives of others has been of paramount importance throughout his career. In 1984, Judge Driscoll served as the Westmoreland County district attorney. As a district attorney, Judge Driscoll was one of the first in Pennsylvania to have a victim witness coordinator, whose duties included informing victims of the case status, assisting eligible victims with obtaining funds under the Pennsylvania Victim Compensation Assistance Fund, and helping victims to receive restitution from defendants found guilty. A decade later, he was appointed to an open seat on the Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas and was elected in 1995 to continue his service. After a brief stint in criminal court, Judge Driscoll returned to family court because he believed it was the best way to help children, not only in custody cases, but also in other cases affecting juveniles. His work with juvenile offenders and exchanges with their parents played an important role in making lasting changes in their lives and reducing crime in the community. Furthermore, Judge Driscoll has been a strong advocate for offender rehabilitation as an effective way to reduce recidivism. His commitment to the community has also been a constant throughout his career, including his work as a trustee on the Board of Excela Health, a Paul Harris Fellow from the Greensburg Rotary Club, and as a past chair of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's criminal procedural rules committee. Judge Driscoll has received many rewards for his service including the Fred Funari Mental Health Association Award of Distinction from the Mental Health Association of Westmoreland County. Judge Driscoll has also had a most distinguished career in the Navy and received several awards for service to his country. They include the Naval Achievement Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, the Presidential Unit Citation, and the National Defense Service Medal for exceptionally meritorious service as part of U.S. naval support activity in Danang, Republic of Vietnam. Although he officially retired on December 31, 2012, Judge Driscoll continued to serve the court during the past 3 years. Despite being paid for only 10 days of service each month, I understand he generally arrived to work early and often left well after closing time. I know his colleagues in the Westmoreland County courthouse will miss him. Last, but not least, the gentle guiding force behind John is his beloved wife, Anne, and they cherish their five children and five grandchildren. It is with great pride that I recognize Judge John Driscoll for his distinguished career in public service. I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing him the best of luck and a happy and healthy retirement.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss for a couple of moments the issue of homeland security and the threat of violent extremism in the United States. In the last 2 months in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, we have experienced two very concerning incidents of violent extremism--first, in December, the arrest of a 19-year-old man in Harrisburg, PA, who allegedly used social media to propagandize and facilitate on behalf of the terrorist group ISIS. At the time of his arrest, law enforcement officers found ammunition and other signs that he might be preparing for an attack. Thank goodness law enforcement at the local and State level worked with the FBI and would have been able to thwart that attack if it were carried out. The second incident, and the one I will focus more of my attention on today, was the shooting of Philadelphia police officer Jesse Hartnett while he was on patrol on January 7 of this year. The gunman ran up to Officer Hartnett's patrol car and fired 11 rounds at very close range. Officer Hartnett was hit three times in his left arm before the attacker fled. In a truly remarkable act of bravery, Officer Hartnett was able to radio for backup and pursue the attacker. The gunman was apprehended as a result of Officer Hartnett's heroic action and the quick response of his fellow officers. Law enforcement professionals like Officer Hartnett and his colleagues are on the frontlines of protecting us and protecting our homeland every day. We have to remain vigilant against potential attacks from terrorist groups in foreign countries, of course, who seek to harm Americans, but we must also confront the threat of violent extremism here at home from individuals who are inspired by the hateful, evil ideology of terrorist groups such as ISIS. These are individuals who can often be categorized as lone wolves, planning and plotting without the direction of a terrorist group necessarily but motivated by violent rhetoric they find online or by other means. On January 18, I visited Officer Hartnett in the hospital to thank him for his bravery and his service. He was in much better shape that day than he was on the night of the attack. We are so happy that he continues to recover well from those injuries. Just last week he was able to leave the hospital in Philadelphia and go home. At the same time, I also received a briefing on the investigation from the FBI and met with Mayor Jim Kenny, the newly elected mayor of Philadelphia, and Philadelphia Police Commissioner Ross to discuss this emerging threat in Philadelphia and certainly in other places as well. What do lawmakers do, Members of this body and the other body as well, the House and the Senate? We have an abiding obligation to give our full support to local and State authorities confronting the threat of violent extremism whether it is in Pennsylvania or anywhere across the country. According to a recent assessment from the Foreign Policy Initiative, 71 individuals have been charged with ISIS-related activities since March of 2014. The profiles and motivations of these individuals differ dramatically, making it even more difficult for law enforcement officials to investigate and prevent attacks. But I believe that as Members of Congress--and, I also would add, the administration as well--we all need to listen to the professional advice of law enforcement officials, homeland security experts, and others rather than simply engaging in categorical condemnation or, unfortunately, oversight by sound bite. I have invited Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson to Philadelphia to join me in a roundtable with community leaders and law enforcement officials in Pennsylvania so I can be briefed on and updated about homeland security issues in Philadelphia and throughout southeastern Pennsylvania. A recent Politico survey of leading mayors around the country evaluated the city executives' perspective on the challenges they confront in addressing terrorism and violent extremism in their communities. The mayors have told us that they identified lack of overall funding as the biggest challenge facing their cities in the context of counterterrorism. And I have to say that for at least a decade, local law enforcement and the FBI have been badly underfunded. Let's ensure that these communities have what they need. I will continue to urge the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice to communicate better with local and State authorities. I will also urge the disbursement of Federal grant funding to support activities to counter violent extremism and to continue to train law enforcement in ways to help prevent and respond to complex terrorist attacks. I am supporting and I hope others will support Senator Carper's Community Partnerships Act of 2015, which is a piece of commonsense legislation that would bolster the Federal Government's support to local and State authorities. We owe it to our first responders, such as Officer Jesse Hartnett from Philadelphia, and we owe it to the communities they protect to give them the support and resources they need to help us confront and defeat violent extremism. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Richard D. Spiegelman. In a world of shifting alliances and temporary commitments, you occasionally come to know someone who epitomizes constancy, loyalty and devotion to the public good. And if you are very lucky, you get to work with him or her. I have had the good fortune of working with such a person, my former legislative director and counsel, Dick Spiegelman. For 8 years, Dick brought to my Senate office a piercing intellect, an intense work ethic, an unfailing good nature, and a vast collection of colorful bowties. I first came to know Dick when he worked for my father, Governor Casey, as Pennsylvania's general counsel, the highest ranking attorney in a Governor's administration. He had sterling academic credentials: an undergraduate degree from Williams College, as well as a master's degree and a law degree from the University of Pennsylvania. More importantly, he brought a wealth of experience in both the private and public sectors to the job. Following 8 years of service in Governor Casey's administration, Dick returned to private practice as a partner in the Dilworth Paxson law firm, representing a blue-chip clientele of major telecommunications companies. After I was elected Pennsylvania auditor general in 1996, my transition leaders broached the idea of luring Dick back into State government. The advice I got from everyone I asked was, ``Get Spiegelman; he knows everything.'' Dick did join my team and served as my chief of staff and chief counsel for 8 years. Then, when I was elected State Treasurer, he served as my chief of staff. Dick came to the U.S. Senate with me in 2007 as my legislative director and counsel. His intellect and encyclopedic knowledge soon led the younger members of my staff to begin referring to him as ``Spiegeltron.'' During his 8 years as LD, Dick played a significant role in the big issues of our day, including the Affordable Care Act, TARP, Wall Street reform, and the American Recovery Act, as well as my legislative initiatives like the ABLE Act and pregnant women's support programs. People from other Senate offices, the executive branch, and the lobbying world always remarked that Dick was unfailingly courteous, but always knew the substance of the matter at hand. No one could put one over on him. He supervised and mentored dozens of legislative staff members who worked under him and later moved on to key positions in government or the private sector. He was also known in the Senate for his sartorial splendor; few others could pull off a seersucker suit and a fedora. A year ago, Dick decided to take a well-deserved retirement. Although no one believed that he would stay retired, he has confounded all of us by doing so--at least up to now. Dick's garden has expanded; he and his wife, Kathy, have dialed up their ballroom dancing skills to ``Dancing with the Stars'' levels; he sees his children, Alex and Margaret, more often; and he continues to offer wise counsel to those who seek it. Dick Spiegelman represents the best in our American tradition of public service. The work that he did over the course of a 40-year career will live on, often permanently, in the form of well-crafted legislation; more honest and more efficient government; and the many, many young men and women who worked with him and who will follow his example throughout their own careers. I thank Dick Spiegelman for all he has done for me, for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and for the United States of America.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I first of all thank Senator Coons and my other colleagues who are working on this. It is very important to walk through where we are in the process. If I had to step back at this moment and say: Well, now that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is moving forward and we are beyond implementation day, what do we have to look for over time? If I had to boil that down to three words-- really three goals we must work toward every day. On some days it has to be the United States on its own and other days working with allies, those who participated in this agreement and signed it and partners in the region--but the three words I guess would be as implementation is going forward, we have to focus on three goals: enforce, counter, and deter. Enforce, making sure the agreement is enforced at every step. I will get to the issue of the consequences for violations of the agreement. Counter, meaning countering the Iranian aggression in the region. That is why it was so important that the President and the administration he leads was very clear about the designation and the sanctioning of the Iranian regime as it relates to ballistic missile launches and their activity. The third is deter. We have to have a deterrence policy that stays in place and, if anything, is strengthened over time. If we do a good job on those three things over the next several decades--literally--enforcing the agreement, countering the aggression, and deterring them--we will have the result we want years from now. First of all, on the question of consequences, similar to a lot of Members of the Senate when I made a decision about the agreement, I wrote down page after page walking through my reasons. At the time I wrote the following: ``We have to prepare for the possibility that the Iranian regime may violate the agreement and may even engage in activity constituting significant non-compliance with the JCPOA.'' That is what I wrote several months ago. That still holds true today. We must not trust in Iran's compliance. In fact, some may say that using President Reagan's old formula, which was ``trust but verify''-- and I will be blunt about this, these are my words--in this case, until proven otherwise, we must mistrust and verify, mistrust the regime and verify. That is the nature of where things are right now. We have to vigorously verify any asserted reason or action the Iranians would take. Also, in the process of doing that, we have to work with our partners to ensure that any violations will be met with swift multilateral consequences. That means we need other nations to help us. We can't do this on our own. We cannot know whether and how the Iranian regime might violate the agreement. For example, we might see them drag their feet on allowing the IAEA access to certain nuclear sites, especially ones where covert activity may be suspected. I firmly believe hardliners in Iran will be watching how we respond to any violation. The best way to condition behavior, the best way to impact what they might do, the best way to cause them a second thought down the road is to aggressively enforce violations of the agreement. It is important we work in lock step with our European partners to prepare for these violations. I hope it doesn't come to pass, but I think we have to assume, and I will assume, that they will violate the agreement. Many of us met with our European friends before making decisions about the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. We need to continue these conversations to ensure that as businesses and business ties increase between the Iranian regime and Europe and other parts of the world, we have to remain unified in our stance on the potential Iranian violations of the deal. That is about violations. The second and final point, briefly but so important to our deliberations and our actions, our friend and ally Israel, the relationship between the United States and Israel is unbreakable. We have to make sure that as we move forward with the implementation of the agreement, we insist that our policy reflects that unbreakable relationship and also continues what has been very strong support for Israel for many years, if not generations, now. We have to recognize at the same time that Israel faces significant threats from Iran and its proxies, especially Hezbollah and Hamas. We also have to assume that Iran will continue its aggression in the region. That is why I talked about countering that aggression before. And we have to assume that Iran will try to expand its support for terrorism. We have already taken some initial steps to expand cooperation with Israel on defense and homeland security, including beginning consultations toward a new 10-year memorandum of understanding, or MOU. That memorandum of understanding on defense cooperation is vital in initiating new efforts to address, among other threats, the terror tunnels Hamas has constructed, which threaten Israel all the time. I urge the administration to focus on the capabilities Israel requires to face both conventional and asymmetric threats and to ensure that the new memorandum of understanding constitutes a transformational investment--not just one budget year to the next budget year or appropriation to appropriation year--in our bilateral relationship with Israel going forward. We should all meet with Israeli leaders to hear their firsthand assessments of the threats and to reassert our mutual interests in countering Iranian aggression. I yield the microphone to my colleague Senator Coons again, but first I wish to thank the Senator from Delaware for his leadership and for what I believe is a bipartisan determination that we have to do everything possible to enforce this agreement aggressively, with consequences when there is a violation, counter Iranian aggression in the region and beyond, and deter, deter, deter over what will be more than one generation. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to commend Dianne Beecher who has honorably served the people of Pennsylvania for over 28 years, most recently as senior constituent advocate for my Senate office. Dianne has been a trusted member of my staff and a loyal friend over the 11 years we have worked together. Before her years in public service, Dianne had already proven herself to be a kind of ``Renaissance woman.'' She dabbled in entrepreneurship, worked as an entertainment promoter, and spent a period of time as a race car driver. While creating this unique resume, Dianne's most important and dearest role was that of a devoted mother to five children--Sharryl, Aileen, Jodi, Bradley, and Brandee. Carrying her compassion for people into her professional life, Dianne found her niche in the pursuit of helping others. She began her career in public service with the Democratic State Committee for Pennsylvania as its political director, eventually joining the Pennsylvania chapter of the AFL-CIO, serving as its political education coordinator. Dianne originally joined my staff in the auditor general's office in 2004; when I became State treasurer, she moved with me. In that office, she assisted in creating one of the first constituent services operations within the treasury department. When I was later elected to the U.S. Senate, Dianne continued her dedication to the people of Pennsylvania as the senior constituent advocate on my constituent services team. Early in my first term as a U.S. Senator, Dianne became a vital component in the establishment of my office's constituent services operation. Through her role as senior constituent advocate, Dianne has literally saved the lives of countless Pennsylvanians. Over the years, she managed hundreds of cases, specializing in Social Security and Medicare, while maintaining a genuine and unfailing commitment to each constituent she encountered. Dianne has saved the health insurance coverage for individuals suffering from serious illnesses, allowing them to continue care and maintain their medications. She is responsible for the financial stability of countless people unable to work due to their medical conditions. In one instance, Dianne's work was recognized by National Public Radio when she saved a family in the midst of the 2008 housing crisis by helping them finally receive retroactive benefits due from Social Security. Most constituent services work goes unacknowledged by the press; however, Dianne's commitment and compassion remains the same for every case in her portfolio. She works meticulously and regularly goes beyond the call of duty to provide the resources and support needed for the people of the Commonwealth. Throughout her career, Dianne has served the people of Pennsylvania with distinction and diligence. Her compassion and commitment to helping others left a lasting impression not only within my office, but in the lives she touched through her good work. I wish her well in her retirement and hope she will have the opportunity to enjoy more time with her children, 10 grandchildren, and two great-grandchildren.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to offer some remarks about the vote we are going to cast on Judge Restrepo, which Senator Toomey spoke to earlier, and I thank him for his work on this nomination. We are finally at the point where we are voting, and we are grateful for that opportunity. Senator Toomey has noted and I know others are aware of Judge Restrepo's qualifications. I will highlight a few, some of it by way of reiteration. I will start with the story itself. This is a great American story. An individual came to this country from Colombia and, through hard work and the benefit of a great education, has risen to the point of being a member of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Upon a positive confirmation vote, he will be a member of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the second highest Federal court in the land, just below the Supreme Court. Judge Restrepo is a 1986 graduate of Tulane University Law School. He graduated from the University of Pennsylvania in 1981 with a degree in economics and international relations. As I said, he has served as a member of the U.S. district court in Philadelphia, which pretty much covers the eastern half of our State. We have a Middle District and a Western District. He is a judge in one of the three districts. He started there in June of 2013, so his nomination to the appeals court was a rapid rise in the Federal judiciary. Before being on the district court, he served as a U.S. magistrate judge from June of 2006 until his appointment to the U.S. district court. I believe all of the other information is already in the Record, but I want to reiterate what I said before and what I know Senator Toomey has said. This nominee is qualified by way of experience, intellect, and education, but maybe the most important thing is by way of integrity. He is someone who has the character to serve on the appellate court after serving with distinction on the U.S. district court. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the nomination.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I commend and salute the work done by Senator Collins. I am grateful to have this opportunity to reiterate some of the great features of this legislation as it relates to these tax provisions. If I had to summarize it in a couple of words, it would probably be the following: certainty for small businesses--maybe just those four words. Senator Collins, when we talk about reaching across the aisle, I am one desk in from the aisle and you are almost on the aisle. It is almost literally reaching, you are so close. But I am so grateful for your work on this issue for several years now. And with all the difficulties in Washington where often folks don't come together on these and other issues, we can show that we can work together and we can make progress on something, giving certainty to small businesses. That is a pretty big deal. In our State we have something on the order of 2.5 million people working in small businesses, so this is the core of our country in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and across the country. I would reiterate and maybe even incorporate by reference Senator Collins' review of the provisions. I would highlight two of them. The 15-year depreciation schedule for restaurants and other leaseholds and other businesses--if you have a restaurant and you can get the benefit of depreciation--figuratively speaking, a slice or a piece of depreciation year after year--it is a lot better if you can get the benefit of those slices or pieces over 15 years--one per year, or one benefit of depreciation--rather than having to wait 39 years for little tiny pieces over those 39 years. That is a simplistic way of explaining it, but it is a vital injection of support for small businesses. On section 179, I think what Senator Collins said makes a lot of sense because a lot of these businesses would see, well, in this particular year, the value of that maximum allowable deduction is at a certain number, a couple hundred thousand dollars. In the next couple of years it could change. Having that certainty of knowing what that benefit will be over time is of enormous significance. The same is true of the benefits that come from bonus depreciation. Mr. President, as I said, I rise today to discuss some critical tax provisions which Senator Collins and I worked to include in the end of year tax package soon to be considered by the House and the Senate. This is a day we fought long and hard for--a day to bring our small businesses and entrepreneurs the certainty they need to invest in their companies, grow and create the jobs our economy needs. As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, I understand that one of the best policy tools we have at our disposal to support small businesses is the tax code, which directly affects businesses' bottom lines. Business owners need certainty about tax policy. That is why I am proud to have worked with Senator Susan Collins to introduce bipartisan legislation that would allow small businesses to plan for capital investments that are vital for job creation, and am thrilled to see provisions from this commonsense proposal included in the end of year tax package. Their inclusion will increase certainty for businesses, increase economic activity and increase the pace of job creation. Small businesses are vital to our economy. In Pennsylvania small firms comprise more than 98 percent of all employers, nearly 2.5 million Pennsylvanians work for small businesses. Across the country, small firms employ just over half of the private-sector workforce, according to the Small Business Administration. In the past, many of the tax provisions affecting small businesses have been enacted on an unpredictable and temporary basis; that changes with this bill. That uncertainty directly hindered economic growth and job creation. When businesses don't know how their investments will be taxed, they cannot make long-term planning decisions with confidence. This bill, with the policies I championed with Senator Collins, will change that. This end-of-year package includes several provisions which, through their being made permanent, will immediately reduce uncertainty about the Tax Code and encourage businesses to grow, invest and hire. A key provision of our bill would make permanent the maximum allowable deduction under section 179 expensing rules. Section 179 allows taxpayers to fully deduct certain capital asset purchases in the year they make the purchase. This type of expensing provides an important incentive for businesses to make capital investments. Without it, taxpayers would have to depreciate those asset purchases over multiple years. By making the maximum allowable deduction permanent and indexing it to inflation, our bill would provide the kind of certainty that businesses need to take full advantage of section 179. A second provision--bonus depreciation--will help businesses in much the same way that the expensing rules do. Bonus depreciation allows companies to expense half the cost of qualifying assets that they buy and put into service in the same year. The bonus depreciation provisions will provide 5 years of certainty to our businesses, creating an added incentive that makes a real difference in small business investment. A 2013 U.S. Treasury report concluded that 50-percent bonus depreciation lowers the cost of capital by 44.1 percent. These figures illustrate the tremendous benefit these policies can bring to our job creators. One additional measure, which I would like to touch on for a moment, is the provision to make 15-year straight-line depreciation schedule for restaurants, leaseholds, and retail improvements permanent. This February, Senator Cornyn and I introduced legislation to make the 15-year cost recovery provision permanent. I am glad to see its inclusion in the end of year tax package. These provisions together will encourage business owners to make key capital investments, and allow for faster cost recovery that goes directly to a company's bottom line, thus freeing up cash that can be used to expand operations and hire more workers. Making these measures either permanent or long-term creates the kind of tax certainty that is critical for all our businesses, but is especially important for small businesses. These are commonsense provisions that both parties can support. They will improve our business environment and ease the tax burden on small businesses. Most importantly, they will directly encourage the investment and job creation that our economy needs. I wish to commend and salute the work Senator Collins did. We are glad there is some certainty as a result of these business tax provisions. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his work in helping us get to this point today. It is an important moment at the end of an important year, and we are grateful for his leadership. Even when we have had a basic disagreement to get this compromise worked out, it would not have happened, it could not have happened without his leadership and working with Democrats on our side of the aisle, Senator Murray, as the ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, working with Chairman Alexander. I thank Senator Baldwin for her work in leading this effort on our side and leading our team. This is a compromise, which, as Senator Alexander noted, some people don't think we do enough of. I think it is an important example of why we must work together. When we consider the compromise that I worked on and the other Senators who are here and others who are not here, along with our staffs--I mentioned Jared and Lauren on my staff, who did a lot of work on this, and we are grateful for that. But we can report today some good news for more than 150,000 current freshmen Perkins loan recipients whose eligibility was cut off when the program expired on the 30th of September of this year. This bipartisan agreement provides for a 2-year extension of the Perkins Loan Program and provides some certainty for students and their families as we debate a longer term solution. We have more to do. Simply put, what students tell us they need is that basic certainty. One of the reasons we are happy we have reached a compromise at this stage is that I think most of us believe what have I often said--that early education applies to higher education. If young people learn more when they are in their college years, they are going to earn more later. One of the ways to learn more when you are at that age is to have the resources and help of a loan program such as Perkins. Perkins loans are critically important in a State such as Pennsylvania. Forty thousand students in Pennsylvania receive these loans at more than 100 schools. As many people know, these loans are fixed rate and they are low interest. Unlike traditional subsidized loans, they don't accrue interest when the student is in school. They have significant robust forgiveness opportunities for borrowers who, for example, become high school teachers or first responders or librarians or nurses or Peace Corps volunteers, among so many other professions. The loans can be consolidated to qualify for income-based repayment and other loan-forgiveness options. This agreement ensures that those with the least financial resources will be able to continue to receive this important source of financial aid. Because of this compromise, freshmen and students across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will not have to choose between dropping out and taking out unaffordable, high-interest private loans in order to secure their degree. I would like to give two examples before I conclude. Abigail Anderson, a freshman at Immaculata University, currently receives a Perkins loan of $2,000. She said she had it all figured out, but with this program expiring on September 30, she said: It changes everything. She said she didn't know how she was going to pay for school next year because her parents couldn't afford to pay any more. About the Perkins Loans, Abigail Anderson said, ``Every little amount counts. It makes a difference.'' Here is another example. Amber Gunn, a freshman at Temple University, is from Hazelton, PA, near my hometown of Scranton. Amber did not have enough money to pay her tuition bill even for this year. Her mother wasn't able to cosign her loans, but she was able to get a Perkins loan in the amount of $5,000 from the help of Temple University's financial aid office. Amber Gunn said as follows: Without the Perkins Loan I probably wouldn't have been able to enroll for my first semester of school. I'm not sure what I'll do next year without the loan, I'm kind of in a predicament. For some, that might be an understatement. So now, with this bipartisan agreement, neither Abigail nor Amber and so many others will have to worry. They can focus their attention on the end of the semester, their exams--and whatever else they are having to focus on--instead of wondering whether they will be able to afford to return to campus for their sophomore years. Even with this compromise, we have lots of work to do--more work to do to come together on reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. But this is a good moment for the Senate, and it is especially a good moment for students and families across the country, and in my case for the some 40,000 in the State of Pennsylvania. I thank the chairman for his leadership and again thank Senator Baldwin.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Toomey for his work on this legislation--our work together. As Senator Toomey did, I especially want to commend Don and Jean Williams, the parents of corrections officer Eric Williams. I will not reiterate the horrific nature of his death; Senator Toomey outlined that. I cannot imagine more of a nightmare for a corrections officer and for his or her family. We can bring some measure of protection to these officers by making sure that every possible circumstance is one in which the officer has pepper spray to be able to prevent an attack or to slow an attack down enough until that corrections officer gets help. I want to say how much we appreciate the fact that this is bipartisan. This is one of those issues that should not have any kind of political division. Senator Toomey outlined the challenge and also the solution for this problem. This is not a guarantee, but it means that if a corrections officer-- and they are always outnumbered, by the way. If they are outnumbered, they will have some measure of protection. I want to emphasize one thing I certainly forgot about or maybe never fully understood until I was in a line at corrections officer Eric Williams' viewing before his funeral. The line was full of law enforcement officers. I think sometimes we forget--and it was made clear to me that night--that these individuals are part of law enforcement, just like police officers at the local level or State police officers or other law enforcement personnel. When you work in a Federal prison and you are a corrections officer, you are part of law enforcement. Those of us who work hard to provide resources for law enforcement should once again support legislation like this. I want to thank Senator Toomey for his work. I want to thank those who made this possible. I hope we can have this legislation pass through the Senate before we leave by the end of this week. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

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.