Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a member of my staff, Joseph Hill, be granted floor access for the remainder of the debate on the Every Child Achieves Act.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up Casey amendment No. 2152, the Strong Start for America's Children Act, an amendment to the Every Child Achieves Act, which will establish a Federal-State partnership to provide access to high-quality public prekindergarten education for low- and moderate-income families. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, as well, to add Senators Tester, Reed of Rhode Island, Klobuchar, and Merkley as cosponsors.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, by way of response, I understand what my colleague from Tennessee just mentioned as it relates to the objection to the so-called pay-for. I don't agree, obviously, for a couple of reasons. No. 1 is I would hope that corporations that get the benefit of retaining a lot of operations in the United States and then seek to avoid taxes by so-called inversion would understand, I believe, the duty they have to this country. They benefit from our workers, our infrastructure. They benefit in so many ways. I would hope those companies would understand and Senators here would agree with the notion that they should undertake the duty to pay their fair share. I understand there is a debate about that. I understand there is an objection, but I would hope at some point we can get to the resolution of this basic question: Are we going to require companies to do more if they seek to engage in a tax-avoidance scheme by a so-called inversion? But I respect what my colleague said, and we will try to move forward constructively.

Mr. CASEY. I yield to my colleague from New York.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I have just a point of clarification. I may have said amendment No. 215-something, it is amendment No. 2152. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to Joseph Robinette ``Beau'' Biden III. Beau was a husband, father, son, brother, veteran, and friend, who lived a life of service, devoted to his family and his country. For Beau Biden, family was the center of his life: his father, our Vice President, and Dr. Jill Biden, his brother Hunter, his sister Ashley, and especially his wife Hallie and their children, Natalie and Hunter. Beau Biden's family and my family have been connected as friends, neighbors, and political allies for two generations. Like Vice President Biden, Beau was committed to duty, had great political skills, and lived his daily life with joy. Inscribed on the front of the Finance Building in Harrisburg, PA, is the following quotation: ``All public service is a trust, given in faith and accepted in honor.'' As a soldier and a public official in Delaware, Beau Biden's work was a testament to that inscription. He accepted the trust he was given by serving with honor and distinction. Beau Biden served in the Delaware Army National Guard as a major in the Judge Advocate General, JAG Corps, which included a tour in Iraq. Growing up with a father who was a United States Senator, Beau Biden could have taken an easy road to elected office, but that was not his way. He wanted to earn the trust of the people. He turned down an appointment as attorney general of Delaware, preferring to run for the position on his own. He won and served two terms as a faithful public servant. He was on track to become the next Governor of Delaware when his life was tragically cut short. As attorney general, Beau Biden fought every day to protect children. Albert Camus once said: ``Perhaps we cannot prevent this world from being a world in which children are tortured. But we can reduce the number of tortured children. And if you don't help us, who else in the world can help us do this?'' Beau Biden answered that call. He said keeping children safe is why he wanted to be the attorney general of Delaware, and during his years in that position, he prosecuted child predators and worked to protect children from sexual abuse. In a column in the Wilmington News Journal, he wrote, ``As adults, we have a legal and moral obligation to stand up and speak out for children who are being abused--they cannot speak for themselves.'' It is fitting that his family established the Beau Biden Foundation for the Protection of Children to continue his fight. At times like this, people often think about what could have been. A decade after Robert F. Kennedy died, Allard Lowenstein wrote an article entitled ``Anniversary of an Assassination.'' In it he wrote, ``And anybody who finds himself wishing on this occasion that Robert Kennedy were around knows what Robert Kennedy would be saying if he were here-- knows that we have dallied long enough, and that it is past time to try again to do better, to make a difference; past time to dream again of things as they ought to be, and ask again why they are not.'' Beau Biden would not only want us to do the same thing, he would expect us to. He would be telling us to keep up the fight to protect children. He would be reminding us about the honor of public service, and he would be encouraging us to go out and serve our communities and our country.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. That is a list of the dollar amounts that States would receive under this. They have to choose to participate, but if they did, they would have not just the dollars for it but the children served. So my amendment would benefit 3 million children across the country and almost 94,000 children in Pennsylvania. In Ohio, 118,760 children would benefit from this program. Even a very large State that might not have the investment we would hope, a State such as Texas, has 299,902 children--let's just round it off and call it 300,000--who would benefit. This chart shows the number of children who would benefit, and I believe it is long overdue that we made this commitment to our children. The State would have to match, and that is why I mentioned it at the beginning. This is a Federal and State partnership. And we know if that happens, the full-day preschool would be available for 4-year-olds-- that is the age category we are focused on--from families earning 200 percent below the Federal poverty level. So if it is a family of four, 200 percent is a little less than $49,000 of family income. Earlier, I mentioned quality. We don't want to just have programs set up around the country--a Federal and State partnership and have a program. That would be nice, but it won't advance the goal of the best possible learning. We want high-quality programs. So we insist that the programs be ones that have teachers with high qualifications who are paid comparably to K-through-12 teachers. We would also insist that there be rigorous health and safety standards for these programs, such as small class sizes and low child-to-staff ratios, and instruction that is evidence-based and developmentally appropriate. We don't want to have just any curriculum; we want to have the best curriculum that is based on evidence that it works and also evidence-based comprehensive services for children. This amendment acknowledges that high-quality pre-K programs should be inclusive of services for children with disabilities as well and recognizes the need for increased funding to specifically serve these children in early childhood. There are other aspects of the program I do not have time to discuss right now, but I wanted to address an issue some people have brought to my attention. This program is a new commitment by the United States of America, and even folks who say this is a really good idea ask: How do you pay for it? Well, we have a pay-for. There is a change to the Tax Code, which I think a lot of folks would support because of what we have seen over the last couple of years. To pay for this, we would put limits on the ability of American companies to invert and move their tax domicile overseas to reduce their tax liability. That is a long way of saying we would make it more difficult for companies to engage in this so-called inversion strategy which allows them, through a loophole, to pay less taxes because they move operations into a smaller company that is foreign owned. I believe we should make it more difficult for companies to do that. If they want to do that--I don't like when they do that, and not many people like it--we should at least make it a little more difficult. If we make it more difficult for companies to do what we hope they wouldn't, that will actually lead to a savings in revenue. It would make a lot of sense for American companies that believe they should move overseas to help us pay for early learning. I think that makes all the sense in the world if we are committed to early learning and if we are committed to making sure we can pay for the program. The amendment itself is paid for by dealing with this loophole or dealing with part of an advantage companies have. This amendment is supported by nearly 40 national organizations, from unions, to parent education and early learning groups, disability advocacy groups, and civil rights groups. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the full list of endorsing organizations printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, what this comes down to is something very fundamental. The basic link between learning and earning--if children learn more now or learn more when they are very young, they are going to earn a lot more down the road. They are going to do better in school. They are going to succeed in progressing in school in a way we would hope, no matter where they live and no matter what their circumstances, if we make the commitment to those children. Because of that success and progress and learning, they will learn more down the road. We know a more developed education leads to great success in school and also leads to a better job down the road. This isn't simply a commitment to a child. It certainly is that first and foremost, but it is also a commitment to our long-term economic future. If you want higher wages and you want better jobs and you want a growing economy and you want America not only to compete in a world economy but outcompete and have the best workforce, the best workers in the world, we have to make sure we have the best education system. That starts long before a child gets to first or second grade and even starts before they get to kindergarten. That is why I refer to this as pre-K or prekindergarten education. If they learn more now, they will earn more later. We have to make sure we bear that in mind. As we debate the appropriate role of the Federal Government to ensure that all students in the Nation graduate from high school prepared for college and career, we cannot forget about this basic piece of the puzzle that begins before that child enters kindergarten. In the short term, students enter kindergarten more prepared and ready for elementary school if we pass legislation like the amendment I am proposing. Some studies have even shown high-quality early learning can help double a child's cognitive development. High quality and early learning can double a child's cognitive development. In the long term, high-quality early learning--we want to emphasize ``high quality.'' I didn't say just any program or any kind of curriculum. We will talk more about that later. High-quality early learning contributes to, among other things, No. 1, a reduction in the need for special education; No. 2, lower juvenile justice rates; No. 3, improved health outcomes; No. 4, increased high school graduation and college matriculation rates; and, No. 5, increased self-sufficiency in productivity among families. These aren't just assertions. These are the results of many years of study. I will turn to the first chart for today. No. 1, high-quality early learning means children can earn as much as 25 percent more as adults. This is where early learning has a direct and substantial correlation to higher wages down the road. No. 2, early learning leads to healthier and more productive lives. There is no question about that. Some of the best research on this has been done lately and should be part of the discussion. No. 3, high-quality early learning also leads to children who are less likely to commit a crime. All the data shows that over many years now. No. 4, high-quality early learning means children are more likely to graduate from high school. We need to get that number up across the country. We hope that will lead to more young people finishing high school and getting higher education, but that doesn't always mean a 4-year degree. It might mean a 2-year degree. It might mean a community college. It might mean a technical school. They can't get to a community or technical school or any kind of higher education unless they graduate from high school. We want to make sure we have programs that do that. Kids learn more now and earn more later. That is the first reason to do this. It has a positive impact on that child and a substantially positive impact on the economy. The other way to look at this is what would happen in the absence of this kind of commitment, which we don't have right now as a nation. I think it is a strategic imperative that we have a commitment to early learning. But what happens if we don't? We can spend upward of $40,000 per inmate on incarceration, thousands of dollars on drug treatment and special education. Whatever the challenge is, those problems become worse the longer we don't make this commitment. That is one option. The other option is to spend a fraction of that $40,000 on high- quality preschool and give children the good and smart start they need in life. It is that old adage: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We often have the best testimony from folks in our home State. I want to read one of those pieces of testimony. This is a letter I received. I will not read the whole letter. I want to refer to a couple of individuals from Pennsylvania. Heather is from Southwestern Pennsylvania, and she wrote to us talking about her child. She is talking about the fact that her daughter is enrolled in a high-quality pre-K program. These are positive testimonials about the impact on the child and on the family. Heather, from southwestern Pennsylvania, wrote to us and told us that her daughter is enrolled in a high-quality pre-K program. These letters are positive testimonials that describe the impact this program has on a child and family. Heather says in pertinent part: My daughter has blossomed since starting the PA Pre-K Counts program . . . she loves it!! She sings us songs she learns daily and has made lots of friends daily she tells us how much she loves her school and her teachers! It goes on from there. Another letter from Dorie D., also from the southwestern corner of our State, out near Pittsburgh, says: Our daughter has blossomed since starting the PA Pre-K Counts program. Having this program available to us has helped us see how our child learns best. She goes on to say: She is just so much more animated and open to learning now. We get letters like these all the time about the positive impact of early learning. This is testimony from people who are directly affected by it. One way to look at this is from the testimony of families. Another way to look at it is from the data. One of the best authorities is Dr. James Heckman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist who estimates that the return on high-quality early learning is as high as $10 for every $1 we invest. Another study of the Perry Preschool Project in Michigan showed a return of $17 for every $1 spent. So when you spend a buck on early learning, you get 17 bucks in return. This study has been on the record for many years, and unfortunately some elected officials haven't taken it to heart. The data of return on investment is overwhelming and indisputable. So if we want to measure this in terms of dollars, there is all of the evidence in the world. I think the evidence and the testimony from parents is even more persuasive, but if we want to do a dollar comparison, there it is--17 bucks returned on 1 buck of investment in early learning. The same research found that children who participated in high- quality early learning earned approximately 25 percent more per year than those who did not. So study after study looking at full-day learning programs across the country have found a positive impact on the future earnings of participants, and in some cases the benefit just from increased wages could be as high as 3.5 percent per year. So this does have a direct correlation to wages. My strong start amendment would help more than 3 million American children have that opportunity for high-quality early learning, and it would give them access to those kinds of programs. My home State of Pennsylvania has made strides in this direction at the State level. That is the good news. The bad news is that they have not made anywhere near the strides we need to make. We are nowhere near 50 percent of our children in these kinds of programs. So because of that, because of that void or that deficit, the number for Pennsylvania in terms of benefits is high. It is estimated that 93,930 children in the State of Pennsylvania could benefit from this amendment being enacted into law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the document entitled ``Five-Year Estimates of Federal Allotments and the Number of Children Served By Casey Strong Start Amendment'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY. Just a couple of more points, and I will move on. Even with these recent gains, according to one of the national groups that track this data, the National Institute of Early Education and Research, NIEER, shows that only 4 in 10 American 4-year-olds are enrolled in public pre-K and fewer than 2 in 10 3-year-olds. Let's just focus on the 4-year-olds. Four in ten 4-year-olds are in these kinds of programs. I don't know how we can compete and have the best workforce in the world and develop the highest skill level in the world for our future if we don't make a commitment to early learning. I don't know how else we can get there over time if we are going to continue to talk a good game about early learning. And to listen to the testimony of parents, CEOs, and business owners who come to us year after year, in addition to talking to us about taxation and other issues--they say: Please, please make an investment in early learning. Some of the biggest companies in Pennsylvania and some of the biggest companies in the world have come to us and said that. Whether it is a CEO or a parent or an educator, they all believe we have to finally, at long last, make a commitment to early learning as a nation because it is a strategic economic imperative. Even in Pennsylvania, where I mentioned before that we made some strides over basically the last decade or 15 years, we rank 10th in the amount of State resources invested. That is kind of good news but not enough. Pennsylvania is still only able to serve less than 10 percent of all 3- and 4-year-olds in State funding for early learning. I think that at the same time we can make the academic arguments--the arguments by parents and educators and CEOs--we also know that the national data and polling show it is something the American people support as well. The American people understand the vital importance of increasing investment in early learning. A national poll conducted last year by the bipartisan team at Public Opinion Strategies and Hart Research showed that 64 percent of Americans believe we should be doing more to ensure that children start kindergarten ready to do their best. Here is another way to summarize it. This chart shows voters who say we should be doing more to ensure that children start kindergarten ready to do their best, and virtually no one else says we should do less. Those who say we should do more to ensure our children start kindergarten ready to learn and ready to do their best--64 percent. Twenty-seven percent say we should do enough. We have to persuade some of those folks in green. Only 4 percent say we should do less. I don't know who those folks are. I hope I can meet them and talk to them. But the overwhelming majority of Americans say we need to do more to give children the opportunity to be prepared to learn and therefore to have a strong start in their education and down the road to literally earn more when they are working. This support runs across all parties--55 percent of Republicans, 63 percent of Independents, and 73 percent of Democrats. When asked about a similar proposal to the one in my amendment, 7 in 10 Americans, including 67 percent of Republicans, support it. So it has overwhelming support. I will end with the words of the folks who know the benefit of these programs already--some of the parents who wrote to us. There are two more letters I will cite. The next testimonial is from Beth. She is from Washington County, PA. She expresses gratitude for the Pennsylvania pre-K program. She says: My daughter has learned so much. Before the start of PA Pre-K Counts, she couldn't write any of her letters or even recognize them. She has improved so much since the first day of class. It has given her socialization with other kids her age. She goes on to tell how much that means to her family and how much that means to her daughter. Finally, Megan, who is from the other end of the State, southeastern Pennsylvania in Montgomery County, says in part that her son ``came into this program shy and with very little verbal communication. He now talks nonstop and loves learning!'' I have only read brief excerpts from letters we have received. Here is the point: If a child enters a program and by the end of that is curious about learning, that is a huge success. If a child enters a program not knowing her letters and by the end of that she is learning and achieving, that is something we can all be positive about. The first letter I read talked about the way one mother's child was singing songs that she learns daily. Whatever it is, whether it is singing or learning letters or reading, these children are learning because of a good program. It didn't just happen by accident. It happened because they are in a high-quality program. It happened because in some communities they made the decision to invest in the future of that child and the future of our economy. So let's take a step with this amendment to allow children to learn more now so they can earn more later and help us move into the future in a very positive direction for our children, for our families, and for our economy. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak on an amendment that has great significance for our country. It is about early learning. I will give you the formal name of the amendment so we have it for the record: Casey amendment No. 2152, the strong start for America's children amendment, which is an amendment to the Every Child Achieves Act that will establish a Federal-State partnership to provide access to high- quality and public prekindergarten education for low- and moderate- income families. We have had a debate, especially over the last couple of days, about our commitment to basic education, so-called elementary and secondary education. As part of that, I think it is the time to finally, at long last, have a debate about early learning on the floor of the U.S. Senate. It has been a long time since that has happened. I thank the folks who have made it possible for us to get to this point to consider an amendment like this and to have this debate about the larger legislation but also about this amendment, in particular. Senator Alexander and Senator Murray were leading the effort to consider the Every Child Achieves Act, but also, in particular, I again salute Senator Murray for her many years, as you might call it, laboring in the vineyards of early learning, as she has done on so many other issues--since the first stage, she has been in the Senate working on early learning. I thank Senator Hirono for her work on this issue as well, in proposing legislation which has come together now after a lot of years of work by a number of us in the Senate. We are grateful for their contribution. I also ask unanimous consent to add Senator Booker as a cosponsor.

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 wish today to remember Ralph J. Roberts, a proud Pennsylvanian and a national business leader. Ralph passed away on June 18, 2015, at the age of 95, after a long life of personal and professional success. To many across our Nation, Ralph was best known as the founder of Comcast, where he served for 46 years as the chief executive officer. Navigating complex technological developments in a competitive entertainment market, Ralph's entrepreneurial spirit helped lead Comcast from a small, local startup in 1963 to the country's largest cable television company today. His professional achievements complemented his extensive philanthropic work; Ralph held positions on several charitable boards in Philadelphia, where he offered his business acumen to support local economic and community development projects. One of the defining aspects of Ralph's career was undoubtedly his enduring partnership with his son Brian, as they built a strong business team while maintaining their close father-son relationship. As the New York Times wrote on June 19, 2015: Mr. Roberts, typically dapper in his signature bow tie and Brooks Brothers suits, became his son's mentor and sounding board, and the two were admired as a potent business partnership while never displaying the kind of strained and tempestuous relationship that can flare when a son succeeds a successful father. ``Since I was 12, all I wanted to do was work with my dad,'' Brian Roberts said in an interview for this obituary. ``I believe the reason we are still in this business when so many others have long since departed was his will to succeed, and to do it with certain core values and integrity. Maybe it was losing both his parents before he was 21, living through the Depression, but somehow he became an optimist. He was the most optimistic man I ever knew. He never told me anything I wanted to do at Comcast was a bad idea, and after more than 30 years, you'd think I've had a lot of bad ideas.'' Together, Brian and Ralph had many good ideas that brought television to tens of millions across America. We are all forever grateful for Ralph Roberts' contributions to the American business world and to telecommunications. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and our Nation benefited from Ralph's hard work and vision. Our prayers are with his wife Suzanne, his children, and his grandchildren.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise to talk about the trade debate we are having in the Senate. I know we have heard a lot of debate on both sides. I wish first to talk about some of the background before I get to what is in front of us in terms of the process in voting, amendments, and things like that. I represent the State of Pennsylvania, which, like many States, suffered through the devastation of not just the 1980s--when it comes to job loss in, for example, the steel industry, we know that, for example, in a very short timeframe, about 5 years, for example, the steelworkers lost half of their jobs in southwestern Pennsylvania--in just those 5 years. They went from around 90,000 steelworkers down to below 45,000 in just 5 years. That is only one example of job loss that families in southwestern Pennsylvania have lived through, as well as other examples from around the State that we don't have time to recite today. So that is kind of the backdrop. And, thank goodness, the steel industry and the steelworkers came together and were able to recover somewhat--obviously, not fully, but they were able to recover over time. And in that time period--we are getting into the 1990s and then into the 2000s--we have had a lot of assertions made that if a trade agreement is brought into effect, we would have job growth and it would help those who had been displaced. But, unfortunately, what has happened over time is that folks in parts of Pennsylvania have seen some of the history. Just to give some examples--and this is a Department of Labor number--525,094 workers were certified as displaced from the period 1993 to 2002 in the aftermath of the so-called NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. Over a period of time between 1993 and 2010, the trade deficit with Mexico was up by some $66 billion, and that is as of 2010, over those 17 or so years. That is the backdrop when we debate trade itself. Now, I know there have been assertions made that this agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership with 11 other countries, will be different and that there will be protections in there that weren't in earlier agreements. I have real concerns about those assertions, and I have doubts that they will play out in that manner because, in the end, this debate is about wages and jobs. It is really, kind of, in one sense, one major issue. Will this agreement and will the trade promotion authority that undergirds this agreement advance or hinder job growth and the growth of wages? I have real concerns about arguments that say it will, that it will advance job creation. One of the assertions often made, as well, is that job loss over time, over several decades--it has been more than one generation now in affected States such as Pennsylvania--job loss or wage diminution is attributable to a number of factors. And there is no question about it; that is right. But even when you are able to--or I should say especially when you are able to isolate the issue of trade, there are some data that support that as well, that you can attribute job loss or wage diminution simply to trade and not to other overarching issues. For example, the Review of Economic Statistics in October 2014, in a significant and substantial report, analyzed a number of issues that relate to trade. Here is the seminal conclusion from that report: ``Occupation switching due to trade led to real wage losses of 12 to 17 percent.'' And occupation switching is, of course, job displacement. That covers the period from 1984 to 2002, so it covers a period prior to the North American Free Trade Agreement and, of course, about 8 years or so after the agreement was in effect. So my concern over the long term is about wages and Pennsylvania jobs. We have a more recent example, and it isn't grounded in the arguments that relate for or against NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. Just since the South Korea trade agreement--a more recent trade agreement--has been in effect, the trade imbalance or deficit with South Korea has increased substantially. By one estimate, it is about 12 to 1--$12 billion of imports on our side to just $1 billion on their side. That is the kind of ratio we don't want. We want the ratio to be something in our favor, not 12 to 1 against it. So what do we do? We have an opportunity over the next couple of days to continue to debate trade promotion authority. In essence, this is the last chance for Congress to have a real impact--or any impact, really--on what happens in terms of the ultimate consideration of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the trade agreement itself. Many of us have amendments, and I would make two arguments before I relinquish the floor. One is that we should have a reasonable number of amendments and have a debate about these issues. We have had some debate already but very few votes and very few amendments. I believe we should make sure that folks for trade promotion authority or against and folks for the Trans-Pacific Partnership or against should have a chance to vote. I will have a couple of amendments. I have filed them. I will just talk about two, and then I will conclude. No. 1 is a ``Buy American'' amendment. It would deny trade promotion authority privileges to free-trade agreements that weaken or undermine ``Buy American'' provisions--very simple but I think very substantial in terms of the potential adverse impacts or positive protections it can provide. We should make sure that ``Buy American'' is maintained, that trade promotion authority doesn't undermine it, and we should not allow the trade agreement itself to undermine the ``Buy American'' provision. That is one of the least things we can do in the context of this debate. The second amendment I will highlight, among several, is congressional certification. This amendment would require certification by the two relevant committees--the Committee on Finance in the Senate and the House Ways and Means Committee--that negotiating objectives have been met, so that prior to a trade agreement going into effect and once there is a final review that those objectives the administration and every administration asserts are part of the trade agreement--that has a review and then a subsequent certification by the two relevant committees. I know there is a lot more to debate, but I would hope that on something as substantial and seismic in its impact on our economy and the economy of the world--40 percent of the world's GDP is contained in this agreement, TPP, and we know trade promotion authority is kind of the rule book in a sense for the Trans-Pacific Partnership--that debate we are having on trade promotion authority should allow States such as Pennsylvania or Ohio or any other State to have its voice heard, to allow the people of our States, especially folks who have concerns about these agreements, to have their voices heard. The only way their voices can be heard ultimately, in addition to their own advocacy and their own efforts to make statements to us, is here on the floor of the Senate, to have debates and then have votes on amendments, and we will see where we stand at the end of the week. To shut off debate and to stop at this moment in time, as some seem to want to do, is contrary to what the Senate should do on something as substantial as the trade promotion authority, which will affect the trade agreement impacting 40 percent of the world's GDP, and I don't think it is asking too much to have a few more hours or even a day or two more of votes on the floor of the Senate. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I wish to honor Corporal Bryon K. Dickson, a Pennsylvania State trooper who was killed in the line of duty on September 12, 2014. Corporal Dickson was a resident of Dunmore, PA, who served our Commonwealth and our Nation with honor, valor and distinction. Corporal Dickson spent the majority of his life in service to others. A graduate of Wyoming Area High School, he entered the Marines after high school and served with honor for 4 years. Following his discharge, Corporal Dickson went on to study at the Pennsylvania State University, where he earned a degree in the administration of justice before entering the Pennsylvania State Police Academy. As a member of the Pennsylvania State Police, Corporal Dickson distinguished himself as a passionate and dedicated officer. He became a certified drug recognition expert and devoted himself to removing impaired drivers from Pennsylvania's roads. In recognition of his efforts, Corporal Dickson received several awards from the Pennsylvania DUI Association, and numerous State police commendations. At the time of his death, he was a 7-year veteran of the force, serving as the patrol unit supervisor for Troop R at the Blooming Grove Barracks. Corporal Dickson represented the very best of law enforcement in Pennsylvania and around the country. He wanted to help his community, so he put himself at risk every day to keep us safe. He ultimately gave, as Abraham Lincoln once said, ``the last full measure of devotion'' to his Commonwealth and his country. We owe him a debt of gratitude for that sacrifice. As he was laid to rest, thousands of police officers from around the country, some from as far away as Alaska, lined the streets of Scranton, PA to pay their final respects to Corporal Dickson. He was eulogized by police commissioner Frank Noonan as a ``steadfast soldier of the law.'' But Corporal Dickson was more than just a brave public servant. In addition to being an honored marine, and distinguished State trooper, he was a devoted family man who ``took perfect care of his wife'' and handcrafted flawless wood toys for his two young sons. He was, most importantly, a loving husband, father, son, brother, uncle, and friend; and that is how he will be most dearly remembered. My thoughts and prayers will remain with his wife Tiffany, his two children Bryon III and Adam, and all those who knew and loved Corporal Dickson. May he rest in peace. And may his sacrifice never be forgotten.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about one aspect of the budget debate that has been before us, and it involves a major program that affects the lives of not just millions of Americans but literally tens of millions. We have debates and discussions in this body all the time about our commitment to children, our commitment to older citizens, and a whole range of folks we are concerned about. All of us at one time or another have made pronouncements about how important it is to support children, especially vulnerable children. We also are very concerned that as our parents or older relatives reach a certain age, they get the quality care in the twilight of their lives that we would expect. They are helped through a range of programs and services, actually starting with Medicare. So we are concerned about our children, we are concerned about our older citizens, and we are also concerned about the middle class. We hear a lot of us speaking about strategies or efforts to help boost the middle class and all of the challenges of the middle class. It is interesting, though, that some issues affect all three of those broad groups of Americans. The issue I am going to talk about is Medicaid. It affects, obviously, children. It affects individuals with disabilities. It certainly affects older citizens across the country. And, indeed, it affects the middle class. The Senate Republican budget cuts Medicaid funding by more than $1.3 trillion, and in my judgment--and this is an assertion of an opinion-- it would end the program as we know it because of the dimensions of those cuts. The budget would repeal the Medicaid expansion, threatening health insurance for some 14 million Americans, and convert much of the program's funding into block grants. Let me talk about seniors for a moment. We have had lots of debates about the best policy going forward in the budget as it relates to a whole range of issues, especially programs such as Medicaid. But at the end of the day, it is not the rhetoric or the speeches; it is the votes that tell where one stands and what we prioritize. We all have our own personal stories about those who have gone before us, and we, of course, always remember our own parents. But when we are talking about our seniors, we are talking about Americans who fought our wars, worked in our factories, taught our children, built the middle class, and did so much for us, including giving us life and love. We want to make sure we are doing everything possible to provide them with the quality care they deserve when they reach the age of 65 or older. We know Medicaid provides older beneficiaries the dignity in their later years that they should have a right to expect, as well as the flexibility to design where they receive care. In my home State of Pennsylvania, over 40 percent of Medicaid spending on long-term services and supports goes towards home and community-based care. Many assume the Medicare Program--Medicare, not Medicaid--will cover long-term care. In fact, it is Medicaid that is the largest single provider of long-term care in America--not Medicare, but Medicaid. Medicaid covers approximately 40 percent of all long-term care services provided in the United States, and 4 out of 10 people is a big number, obviously. It is lots of folks we care about and interact with in the course of a day, whether they are neighbors or family members or coworkers across the board. As enrollment continues to grow, more Americans are relying upon Medicaid than ever before. Medicaid is the major long-term care program for the middle class. So I would ask we all keep that in mind as we consider the determinations made through the budget process. Let me give one example of a man living in Philadelphia--his example and his mother's. After her husband's passing, this individual's mom had health problems and her health deteriorated quickly. Kidney problems forced her in and out of the hospital. She was living on a fixed income, with medical bills piling up. She sold her apartment and used that money to pay for a few more years of care. This woman and her son were using every penny they could to help with her care, but it wasn't enough. She needed constant assistance. Her son, as the only child in the family, couldn't do it himself while raising his own two children. Eventually, this man's mother received Medicaid benefits and moved into a nursing home in Philadelphia. Her son says he doesn't know what his family would have done without Medicaid. Paying for nursing home care would have quickly eaten his salary, and he would have had to sell his family home. Again, he was raising two children. Medicaid allowed him to avoid that vicious cycle. Like millions of Americans, this man went to school and worked hard to get a good job so he could make a decent living. But despite being employed as a professional, without Medicaid to help his mom, he would have had to impoverish his own family--his two children--to care for his aging mom. This would have put his children's future at risk. Medicaid offered this individual some help--obviously, his mother some help--in providing for his family and offering a way to have his mother get the care she needed. This is not atypical. This is reality for so many families. Here is one quick statistic. Then I will move to children, and then I will wrap up. In Pennsylvania, seniors accounted for just 10 percent of Medicaid enrollees but over 22 percent of spending in 2011. The national numbers aren't much different than that. The number of enrollees might be around 10 percent or in that lower range, but the spending, because of the kind of care they received, is of a higher cost. Let me talk for a couple of minutes about children. Together, Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, which we know as CHIP, served more than 45 million children in Federal fiscal year 2013, representing one in three children in the United States. So Medicaid plus CHIP is the health care for more than one in three children. We know CHIP is the health insurance program that impacts a lot of middle-income or at least lower-income families with children. In Pennsylvania, for example, just the Medicaid Program covered 34 percent of children ages 0 to 18. So just a little more than a third of Pennsylvania children rely upon Medicaid--a critically important program for those children. One of the groups here in Washington that tracks programs and policies for children is First Focus. They had a report in September of 2014 where they reported that in calendar year 2012, 47 percent of rural children were covered by public insurance, meaning Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program or maybe a third option. So 47 percent of rural children were covered by public health insurance and only 38 percent of urban children. I know that sounds counterintuitive for some here, but rural children in America rely substantially upon Medicaid and the CHIP program. So improving access to health insurance for low-income children not only leads to better health outcomes in the short run and in the long run, but it also improves educational outcomes and government savings in the long term. Compared to their uninsured counterparts, children covered by Medicaid or CHIP are more likely to complete high school and college. These important programs help children literally succeed in life because they stay in school, whereas they would not at that rate if they were uninsured. Some claim Medicaid is a highly inefficient program--that is one of the charges against it--whose costs are growing out of control. In fact, Medicaid's cost per child is 27 percent lower than the per-child cost for private insurance. And Medicaid's costs per beneficiary have been growing more slowly--per beneficiary costs--than under private coverage. I would argue it is not only efficient but effective in delivering quality health care to our children. We know there is more to be done. We know there are improvements that Medicaid could incorporate. We need to improve dental and behavioral health care for children and increase access to screenings and vaccinations to make sure our children are protected. Let me just close with a couple of observations about children and pregnant women. We know that Medicaid is also an important addition for children, but it is very important for pregnant women, with prenatal, labor, delivery, and postpartum care. Nationwide, Medicaid finances 45 percent of all births--45 percent. We have a lot of folks in both parties who say how much they care about pregnant women and children. Well, if 45 percent of all births are in Medicaid, we better protect Medicaid. It is vitally important. Children who have health insurance, such as Medicaid and CHIP, are more likely to receive vaccinations, have regular medical checkups, and avoid preventable childhood illnesses. So let me conclude with this thought. We know we have to find savings. We know we have to work towards a fiscally responsible budget. But I don't think anyone here believes the way to do that is to do it on the backs of children who are poor but receive good health care through Medicaid or to do it by way of short-circuiting or limiting substantially the opportunities that older citizens have to go to a nursing home. Everyone in this building knows someone who is in a nursing home solely because of Medicaid--not everyone, but plenty of people either we know and love or people we know and encounter during the course of the year. So if we care about pregnant women, if we care about kids, if we care about older citizens and individuals with disabilities, we should think long and hard before we substantially cut, as this budget does, Medicaid. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, Senator Wicker and I would like to thank all of the individuals who were involved in making the 2015 National Prayer Breakfast a great success. Thousands of people from across the country and world participated, including President Obama and His Holiness the Dalai Lama. On behalf of Senator Wicker and myself, I ask unanimous consent that the full transcript be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the Saints John Neumann and Maria Goretti High School girls varsity basketball team from Philadelphia, PA. After an undefeated 2014-2015 season, the Neumann-Goretti Lady Saints achieved the No. 1 rank in the Nation and were named the national champions of all high school basketball teams. This remarkable achievement demonstrates the fortitude and talent of the team, its leadership and the school. Under head coach Andrea Peterson, the Lady-Saints dominated their regular season, securing their playoff berth when they earned their second consecutive Philadelphia Catholic League Championship. The Lady- Saints continued their streak, winning the PIAA District XII AA City Championship and earning a top seed in the Pennsylvania State tournament. After earning wins with large margins in all four rounds of the Pennsylvania State tournament, the Neumann-Goretti team entered the State championship game against the Seton-LaSalle Rebels of Pittsburgh. Dominating the game with a score of 79-34, the Lady Saints earned the Pennsylvania State championship title. This monumental season resulted in national recognition by USA TODAY, ESPN, CBS MaxPreps, and Blue Star Media. The team was also named team of the year for the Philadelphia and Southeastern Pennsylvania region by the Philadelphia Inquirer. I am proud to join the city of Philadelphia in celebrating the performance of senior players Ciani Cryor, Sianni Martin, A.J. Timbers, Christina Aborowa, Melanie Schoolfield, Kaschae Harris, and honorary team member Amanda Brett. I also congratulate returning players Felicia Aiyeotan, Erica Brown, Minika Glenn, Jabria Ingram, Alisha Kebbe, Jada Russell, Kamiah Smalls, Jaylen Durrett, Shayla Green, Daijah Parmley, and Chyna Wooten. I wish all of these players well as they continue their academic careers. The Neumann-Goretti Lady-Saints, Head Coach Peterson, Assistant Coach Kat Scanlan, Ms. Letty Santarelli and the entire Saints John Neumann and Maria Goretti High School should take great pride in this achievement. Their accomplishments are celebrated by the entire Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I wish the team and the community every success in their future endeavors.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the career of Dr. Glenn Steele upon his retirement from Geisinger Health System. Teddy Roosevelt once said, ``Far and away the best prize that life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.'' In his 14 years as CEO of Geisinger, Glenn Steele has been the embodiment of that idea. Geisinger is located in Dansville, PA, and is the largest rural health services organization in the country, serving more than 3 million residents throughout 48 counties. Annually, Geisinger provides over $400 million in community support, helping to meet the needs of all Pennsylvanians in the area, regardless of their ability to pay. Under Dr. Steele, Geisinger has been a leader in delivery system reform, improving quality of care and population health while reducing cost. Dr. Steele is a trailblazer in the health care field. With a medical degree from New York University School of Medicine and a doctorate in microbiology from Lund University in Sweden, Dr. Steele brings a unique perspective to managing a health care system. He has authored and coauthored over 460 scientific and professional articles and has been widely recognized for his investigations into the treatment of liver cancer and colorectal cancer surgery. He is also a visionary in the area of health care delivery and financing, one of the achievements for which Geisinger is most well-known. Since 2012, Dr. Steele has served on the U.S. Congressional Budget Office's panel of health advisors, cementing his reputation as a national leader. Dr. Steele has earned numerous awards over the years. He was named to Modern Health Care's list of the 50 Most Influential Physician Executives five times and the list of the 100 Most Influential People in Health care five times. He received the CEO IT Achievement Award in 2006, American Hospital Association's Grassroots Champion Award in 2007, the American Hospitals Association's Health Research & Education Trust Award and the HFMA Board of Directors' Award in 2011. Most recently, he was named to the Becker's Hospital Review's list of ``40 of the Smartest People in Health care'' for his work in health care reform. He also received the 2014 Gail L. Warden Leadership Excellence Award, which recognizes people for innovative approaches to bringing high-value and accessible health care to their communities, permanently transforming and improving the field. That final award is a testament to Geisinger's legacy and sums up Dr. Steele's vision of health care. On behalf of the people of Pennsylvania, I wish Glenn Steele well in this new chapter. I have no doubt he will continue transforming health care and changing and improving the lives of people and the communities where they live.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I am honored to be working on this amendment with Senator Shaheen and Senator Murray. This amendment will create a deficit-neutral reserve fund to support efforts to prevent employment discrimination against pregnant workers. In the United States today, for so many years, we have had a standard set forth in the Americans with Disabilities Act, reasonable accommodations for those with disabilities. The same should apply to pregnant workers. We had a Supreme Court case decision just yesterday. Peggy Young was victorious, but the result is that there is no predictable standard for pregnant workers in the workplace. We need a standard so employees know what their rights are and so employers can follow the law. I yield for my colleague Senator Shaheen.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I request a rollcall vote and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, just a brief description of both. Both are deficit-neutral reserve funds. The first provides reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers. That is No. 632. We have had a standard in place for a quarter century pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act that individuals who have a disability in the workplace are given reasonable accommodations at the worksite. We should have the same for pregnant workers. We have a case that was decided today by the Supreme Court, Young v. UPS. This was a mixed result, but I think Peggy Young, the plaintiff in that case, got a good result. But there is still not a clear standard which we could place in the law, just like we have in the context of an individual with a disability in the workforce. So we need a clear standard to increase employment opportunities and prevent employment discrimination against pregnant workers. Secondly, amendment No. 633 is a further development of existing policies as it relates to childcare. We have had in the Tax Code now for a long time a tax credit for families who are paying for the cost of childcare. That tax provision is a way to provide tax relief to offset childcare expenses for families. The problem, though, is under current law--as it is currently structured--it doesn't provide the kind of relief it should. In fact, the way it is designed now, very few families are able to benefit from it. I want to make it--I think it should be refundable. That is the best way to provide a measure of relief that is not there now for families. Childcare for some families--if it is not the most expensive part of their budget, it is often second or third--thousands of dollars. It has gone up across the country by some 70 percent in less than 30 years. We need to help families be able to pay for something as essential as childcare. That is what that amendment is about. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Edward C. Williams, Jr. Ed honorably served the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for more than 15 years, most recently as State director for my Senate office. Ed has been a trusted advisor and friend over the 8 years we worked together. A native of Wilkes-Barre, an alumnus of the Head Start program in Luzerne County, and a graduate of Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster, Ed has deep roots in Pennsylvania. Prior to joining my staff, he served in the House of Representatives for Congressman Paul Kanjorski as a staff assistant, later earning a leading advisory role on House budgetary proceedings. When he was recommended to my staff following my election to the Senate in 2006, we knew right away that we wanted Ed on our team. He was the first legislative staffer hired for my Washington, DC office, serving as our projects and appropriations director. Ed immediately became one of my most valued and effective legislative aides. To further his education he attended law school at night while working full-time in Washington, DC and passed the bar. He was promoted to senior counsel in my office shortly thereafter. In 2010, Ed accepted the position of State director for my Senate office. Overseeing seven district offices and serving as my primary liaison to many of the State's most prominent leaders, Ed has never failed to exceed expectations. Were it not for Ed, many of our most ambitious projects could never have been realized. In my years of public service, I have had the privilege of working with many intelligent and hard-working professionals. Without question, Ed ranks among the top. He is one of the most capable and diligent people I have had the pleasure of working with, and his commitment to excellence is evident in all that he does. On a personal note, getting to know Ed has been a privilege. A true champion for the people of our State, Ed should be extremely proud of the great work he has done for thousands of our constituents. I will forever be grateful to him for his public service. My staff and I will miss Ed greatly, but we know that he will remain a close friend and trusted advisor. I wish him, his wife Lisa, and their son Matthan well in this exciting new chapter of their lives.