Bob Casey

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. I will.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to talk tonight about one issue: the issue of children. But I wish to speak about that one issue in two separate contexts: One is the budget we are debating now and will continue to vote on all week and the second is with regard to the Children's Health Insurance Program. Let me start with the premise that I believe those of us who were elected to both Houses of the Congress and in both parties are charged with a basic responsibility to our children. It doesn't matter where we live or what State we represent or what district, in the case of the House, I believe we are charged with that responsibility. A long time ago, Hubert Humphrey, who served in this Chamber for many years and was well known across the country, set forth a moral test for government. He talked about the moral test being how government treats those in the dawn of life, those in the shadow of life, and those in the twilight of life. Of course, in speaking of the dawn of life, we are talking about children. That test is still appropriate and we should try our best to adhere to it in terms of public policy, especially when it comes to the budget. The budget, of course, is a reflection of who we are as a country and what our values are. It is in a sense a mirror into which we look or should be looking to see who we are. And if we are not setting forth policy and being strong advocates for our children, we may as well not be here. So I think there is a test that each one of us must face when it comes to what we are doing on behalf of children. I also believe in a very real sense that the programs, the strategies, the expenditures we make on behalf of children are in fact an investment--an investment in the long-term economy of the United States. This isn't just the right thing to do; it is also the best thing we could do for a growing economy and for our fiscal situation years from now. If kids are healthier, they will get better jobs. If they learn more when they are younger, they are going to earn more when they are older. That is not just a rhyme, it is true, and all the studies show it. So I believe this budget debate is a time to reflect upon what will happen to our children. I have real concerns about the budget as it relates to children. Again, these are in our society the folks who are powerless and in many cases voiceless. They are not voting, they don't have a lobbyist, they don't have a high-paid strategist or voice for their needs. Because they are powerless and because they are in a sense voiceless, it is up to us to speak on their behalf--and we speak with our votes, we speak with our work. So what is the proposal in this budget? Let me work through some of the numbers. According to one of the leading advocacy organizations in the United States, First Focus, discretionary investments make up nearly one-third of all Federal investments that go to children. So what we do on the discretionary part of the budget--which, by definition, because it is discretionary, we have decisions to make about it year after year. Because of that, we have to be very careful when it comes to these decisions--whether it is the budget resolution, whether it is the authorization process, or whether it is in fact the appropriations process. This funding, this so-called discretionary, nonmandatory--if I can call it that--part of the budget includes programs such as Head Start, childcare assistance, housing support, special education, to name a few examples that have a direct and substantial impact upon our children. The Republican budget we are debating this week cuts $236 billion over 10 years in the nondefense discretionary part of the budget. Nondefense discretionary is a long way of saying the part of the budget that we vote on and we will have votes on that relate to the appropriations. So $236 billion over 10 years is the cut. That cut, I would argue, falls disproportionately in a substantial way upon children. What do these cuts mean for children and for families? Of course, we cannot separate one from the other. We will look at Head Start, and 35,000 children will be cut from Head Start-- some 1,250 fewer children in a State like Pennsylvania, just by example for one State. What are we going to gain? How better off would the country be with 35,000 fewer kids in Head Start? I don't think we are going to be better off. I think we are worse off if we do that. It makes no sense. This is a program that has been in existence for 50 years. It has helped a lot of children succeed. The State director from my office in Pennsylvania, who just left our staff recently and served with distinction, Ed Williams, was a Head Start kid. I meet people all the time in our State who are leading very successful lives in the private sector or public sector. Ed is just one example of having had the benefit of Head Start to get a head start in life because of disadvantages that certain children face. How about students with disabilities, a $347 million cut to funding for students with disabilities, which means a little more than $12 million less for Pennsylvania children with disabilities. How about housing, 133,000 nationwide fewer housing vouchers. In Pennsylvania, that adds up to 620 families who, if they had those vouchers, would be able to afford decent and safe housing. What are we getting for fewer families who have access to housing vouchers? Again, it is not an experimental program. It is a program that we know works, a program that has been in existence for a long time to help folks. We know when we invest early in a child's life, we see a great return on investment. All the studies show this. It is irrefutable: If you spend a buck, you get a lot more than a buck back. By some estimates, the bang for the buck is in the double figures. In one study on early learning, we get $17 back for the $1 spent. I mentioned before that if we make investments in children in terms of their early learning, they will in fact learn more now and earn more later. That is what we should be focused on when it comes to our children, when it comes to their ability to succeed in school and, of course, when it comes to their ability to get a good job and be part of a growing economy. The budget proposal makes deep cuts in many other investments to protect our most vulnerable children, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the so-called SNAP program that we used to call food stamps. That, of course, provides nutrition aid. If we were doing the right thing as a nation--and we are not there yet, even though we have made some progress on some fronts--we would make sure children have enough to eat. That would be one pillar of our protection for children. We are not there yet, but the SNAP program helps substantially on that. We would make sure they have early learning opportunities. I talked about that and will talk about it more. We would make sure they have access to health care. That is why we have Medicaid for poor children, that is why we have the Children's Health Insurance Program for others, and that is why so many private sector companies provide health care that, of course, covers children of their employees. But if we are doing at least those three things--early learning, food security or food and nutrition, as well as health care-- we are going to be doing what is right for our children. I would argue we have to examine this budget and apply a kids' test-- not a special interest test, not a lobbyist test, not a who-is-powerful test, not a test about who has the most to gain from this budget, but who might have to most to lose, and one of those groups, I would argue, is our children. When it comes to the SNAP program, according to Feeding America-- another great advocacy group--nearly half of all SNAP participants are children. And according to another organization we rely upon for analysis, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, investments in SNAP lifted 2.1 million children out of poverty in 2013. So why would we cut a program like that, that would disproportionately and adversely impact our children? What do we gain from that as a country? What do we gain when fewer and fewer children are helped with a nutrition program that will make sure they have enough to eat? In addition to SNAP, the Republican budget would roll back significant progress we have made for children who qualify for the child tax credit or the earned-income tax credit. If the improvements to these credits are allowed to lapse, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that 1 million children will fall back into poverty. I think people in both parties would argue that these two--and maybe especially the earned-income tax credit--are one of the best, some would argue the best--the best--poverty reduction strategies we have ever had in place in our policy. I think if the earned-income tax credit is keeping children out of poverty, we should make sure it remains in place and remains a tax strategy that can help prevent 1 million children from falling back into poverty. We should also be using the Tax Code to help working families rise into the middle class, those families who may not be there yet but can rise into the middle class. But instead, the Republican budget does nothing to prevent tax increases, averaging $1,100 for 12 million families and students paying for college, and $9,000 for 16 million working families with children. That makes no sense for those families or for those children. As many as 486,000 Pennsylvania families could benefit from the earned-income tax credit, the child tax credit and the opportunity tax credit of 2015--all good ideas, all impacted adversely by the budget. Finally, I will conclude with Medicaid. Medicaid for some people is some program far away that they don't think affects their lives. A lot of families--lower income families, middle-class families, even-- benefit from the long-term care part of Medicaid. A lot of families may not know that Medicaid is the reason that their mother, father, or loved one could be in a nursing home. What does it mean for kids? Medicaid for so many children, millions of them, is the only health care they have. The good news is that it is very good health care for a lot of children. They get access to early periodic screening and diagnostic testing. So they get the screening and the testing they need so we can provide the kind of health care that child needs, but we cannot provide unless we do that screening for those children. It provides quality health care for millions of children in the country. We should remember that when people make proposals around here to slash Medicaid, some by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade, that it is a direct hit--a direct hit on children. Based on calculations from the White House, the Republican budget proposal would block-grant Medicaid funding to Pennsylvania by more than $41 billion over 10 years. I don't know how the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or any State is going is to be better off when Medicaid is block-granted, sent back to the States, hoping--just hoping--that maybe the States can pick up the cost. That makes no sense. Our State is going to be worse off if we lose $40 billion, or even a number lower than that, over the next 10 years on Medicaid. By one estimate last fall, 47 percent of children who live in rural areas are the beneficiaries of either Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program. So when those folks talk about cutting Medicaid or not doing what I hope we can do--which is to extend the Children's Health Insurance Program for the next 4 years, not only 2--they should remember that 47 percent of rural children benefit from those programs. When it comes to Medicaid, children may only make up 20 percent of the cost of Medicaid, but half of the enrollees in Medicaid are children. So they might only be 20 percent of the cost, but they are half of the enrollees. We know that Medicaid was created 50 years ago. The government put forth a promise, which is somewhat of the test I started with about children in the dawn of their life. The promise was to ensure that the most vulnerable members of society had access to health care, a pretty simple promise and pretty easy to understand our obligation when we recite that promise. So whether it is our kids, whether it is older Americans who need to get nursing home care, or whether it is Americans and many of them children with disabilities, Medicaid ensures that access to health care. Medicaid is the promise we must keep to folks who need nursing home care, to children who are poor and may not have health insurance without Medicaid, and of course to individuals with disabilities. So we have a long way to go to prove that we are keeping that promise. Mr. President, I will conclude with some thoughts about the Children's Health Insurance Program. We all know this is not only a bipartisan program but a very successful program. From 1997, when it was enacted, to the year 2012, the uninsured rate for children fell by half--from 14 percent to 7 percent--across the country, a remarkable achievement. It means we are not there yet because we still have 7 percent who are uninsured, but that is a substantial step forward and a substantial measure of progress for the country. This program, the Children's Health Insurance Program, along with Medicaid, is helping to reduce disparity in health coverage affecting low-income children across the country. Without legislative action to extend funding beyond September 30 of this year, over 10 million children across America are at risk of losing their comprehensive, affordable--I will say that again, comprehensive and affordable quality care, including, by one estimate, 270,000 children in Pennsylvania. About 2 million of the children currently enrolled in CHIP would likely end up uninsured while the others would face higher premiums and higher out-of-pocket costs. We should do the right thing and make sure we have funding in place for 4 years for the Children's Health Insurance Program, not just 2 years. Unfortunately, what we are hearing from the proposal sent to us from the House is that the 4-year commitment is only 2 years. So we have a lot of work to do. I believe the right thing to do on CHIP is to enact what Senate Democrats have proposed--a 4-year so-called clean extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program as soon as possible, and that is S. 522. That would be the right thing to do. We can give speeches and talk a lot about how we all support kids, and it is nice to say that and it is nice to vote once in a while for programs and strategies that help kids, but I believe the test is a lot tougher than that. The test will come on this budget vote--a test on whether we support children. If we are cutting Medicaid by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 10 years, if we are cutting the SNAP program by tens of billions of dollars or more, maybe even higher than that over the next 10 years, and if we are not doing the right thing on children's health insurance--and I could go down a longer list--then we are not doing what we need to do for children. They don't have lobbyists, they don't give campaign contributions, they don't have power, and they may be voiceless, but we have an obligation in both parties and in both Houses to be their voice. But I am afraid we are headed down a road with a budget that harms children substantially, and I hope that over the next couple of days we will make the right decisions for our children. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to address the same issue Senator Brown raised, the issue of trade, and I thank him and commend him for not only his leadership on this issue for many years, his time in the U.S. House of Representatives and now in the Senate for the last 8 years, but especially his work and his focus on this issue most recently because we are moving into a period now of great debate about trade promotion authority and trade agreements that will be debated here in the Senate and throughout the country. So I commend him for that. What Senator Brown spoke to was a basic economic insecurity that so many Americans feel. It didn't just arise in the last couple of years. This is a long-standing problem and a long-standing threat to people's economic insecurity. Trade agreements play a role in it. I spoke the last time when the Senator and I were here about the concerns I had about these trade agreements, but also the specific concern about jobs or the adverse impact on jobs since the North American Free Trade Agreement and then subsequent trade agreements in the intervening years. Today I rise to talk about a related but very urgent issue, and that is the issue of wages. Senator Brown spoke to this as well. We know that middle-class spending power is the main driver of our economic growth and the foundation of the American dream. If people have money in their pockets because they have reasonable and fair wages, they are going to drive the economy in a much more substantial way. But in recent years this spending power that I speak of, of most Americans, has fallen dramatically. According to the Federal Reserve, the average worker's weekly earnings were 15 percent lower in 2012 than in 1972, when adjusted for inflation. So just in that roughly 40-year time period, wages were down in real dollars by 15 percent. Senator Brown referred to a disconnect between productivity and wage growth, and there was a recent chart that was developed by the Economic Policy Institute. The source for this is the Economic Policy Institute analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of Economic Analysis. I hold it up. It is not big enough for people to see, but there is a big line in the middle of this chart. Because it is a chart, I won't enter it into the Record, but I will refer to it. The basic conclusion is, when we look at the question of productivity growth and wage growth from 1948 to 2013, here is what we find. It is a two-chapter book. Chapter 1 is a positive chapter; chapter 2 is really disturbing. It is one of the most significant charts I have ever seen of what has happened to the wages of working Americans. Here is what it says. From 1948 to 1973, productivity up 96.7 percent, hourly compensation up 91.3. So the difference between productivity increase and wage increase basically from World War II to 1973 was a differential of about 6 percentage points. As Senator Brown mentioned, an alignment over that time period between wages and productivity makes sense. When workers are producing more, when the economy is, as it was after World War II, producing so much more, wages should go up in a commensurate manner. Unfortunately, that is chapter 1. Chapter 2 of this book starts in 1973 and it ends on this chart in 2013. In that 40-year time period, productivity was up again. It wasn't up 96.7 percent, but it was up 74.4 percent, so still a strong productivity increase between 1973 and 2013. What, we might ask, happened to wages? Was it still a line? Was there a gap? Was it exactly the same? Unfortunately, the story is a terribly sad story. Hourly compensation, 1973 to 2013, was up a grand total of 9.2 percent. So in the first period, wages were up 91.3 percent. In the second period, 1973 to 2013, wages were only up 9.2 percent. No one in this body, no one in the other body in Congress--no one who represents the American people in Congress or any State legislature, no one who represents our country, can be satisfied with a 9.2-percent wage growth over 40 years when we are still having robust productivity increases. There are a lot of reasons for it. There are a lot of causes we could make that we could attribute to that terrible diminution, but we have to do something about it. Part of that is having an agenda that will speak to wages and the middle class, and not to the issues that are in front of us, including these trade agreements. I would argue without a doubt that our trade agreements have made this problem significantly worse over the last 20 or 25 years, and I am afraid we are headed down that path were trade promotion authority, the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership, enacted into law. Here is what the wage diminution meant in Pennsylvania in a shorter period of time, about 15 years. Pennsylvania median household income fell by 3 percent in the years between 1998 and 2013, according to the Census Bureau. But this trend we are talking about continues today. Even as our economy recovers and stock markets reach a record high, the average American's paycheck is barely keeping up with the rising cost of living. So this problem of a lack of wage growth is nowhere near being solved. The decline in middle-class workers' purchasing power--another way of saying wages--is not just unfair, but economic analysis also shows it is a drag on our economy, which is primarily driven by consumption. So this isn't just a story of a worker and his or her family being pulled down by very powerful forces, only having their wages go up 9 percent in 40 years, it is also about the wider economy. If folks don't have fair wages, it is going to drag down the economy, and we are seeing evidence of that over those 40 years. But instead of enacting policies that help the middle class and focus on this issue of wages or the lack of growth of wages, like policies such as increasing the minimum wage--that would be one of the right things to do to go at this problem--or facilitating access to high- quality childcare, for a lot of families the second highest cost they have other than housing and maybe some other expense, usually housing or some other expense--No. 2 is usually the cost of childcare. It is a barrier to work. If you can't afford childcare, you can't go to work or you have to accept a job that pays less. Extended relief to workers displaced by foreign competition. I would put the word ``unfair'' foreign competition. That is something else we should work on. So if we are working on raising the minimum wage, growing the middle class, helping families pay for childcare, helping families pay for the terribly high cost of higher education, maybe no other number is more disturbing than this ``wage, 9 percent in 40 years'' number that I mentioned. Maybe the only other number more disturbing is the cost of college education going up higher than anything in our lives the last couple of decades. Middle-class workers know this type of policy that some are pursuing is headed in the wrong direction. Instead of them seeing us working on policies that will advance and support the middle class, they see Congress considering a massive trade agreement with 11 Asia Pacific countries. So these same middle-class families who look to us for progress and action and results for the middle class and for their wages are seeing a lot of folks in Washington focus on trade agreements that will make the problem worse. A recent Pew poll of the Nation found that 83 percent of Americans said free trade does not raise their wages and 45 percent said so- called free trade lowers American wages. For many years, many economists have argued that trade was a net positive for Americans and did not have a noticeable impact on wages. However, recently I think other economists are having a different perspective. A 2009 paper by three economists, one from the University of Pennsylvania, found that when workers are displaced by trade and switch jobs, they suffer real wage loss of between 12 and 17 percent. So in light of this data by economists that says when you have a job switch or a job change because of trade and your wages are going to go down 12 to 17 percent, and all the other data that we have about what has happened in States such as Pennsylvania, or Ohio, which Senator Brown represents--what has happened to those communities and those people-- why would we go down the same path of ratifying agreements which will do the same over time? I don't think we should, and that is why this debate is very important. Another analysis by the Economic Policy Institute, a standard economic model shows that American workers without a college degree earn $1,800 less each year as a result of expanded trade. Again, further exacerbation of the same problem that trade agreements lead to. I know people in my home State of Pennsylvania--and I am sure this is true in Ohio and a number of other States--are skeptical of these trade deals because they have experienced these pressures firsthand. This is real life for them. So before we cut another deal, we should work to level the playing field for our own companies and workers, including ensuring workers and companies get real relief from unfair trade practices. Pennsylvanians and, I think, Americans want Congress and the administration to focus on policies that lead to both good jobs and good wages. Fundamentally, I argue that these agreements cause major concerns on both fronts, the jobs front as well as the wage front. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the nomination that will be before the entire Senate next week, the nomination of Loretta Lynch to be the Attorney General of the United States of America, and to urge all of my Senate colleagues to quickly confirm United States Attorney Lynch to this position. Loretta Lynch has dedicated much of her life--many years of her life--to public service, serving twice as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. In this role she earned a reputation as a tough but fair prosecutor. I would like to take a few minutes to outline some of Loretta Lynch's record. As United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, she has kept communities safer by bringing serious, violent criminals to justice, prosecuting high-level gang members and drug traffickers. U.S. Attorney Lynch has also tirelessly fought public corruption. While she was at the U.S. Attorney's Office, she was the lead prosecutor in municipal corruption cases on Long Island and supervised the prosecution of the New York State Senate majority leader recently. During her time in private practice, Loretta Lynch did pro bono work as special counsel to the prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, further evidencing her commitment to public service and to the enforcement of the law. Hers is a truly impressive record, and one that without question prepared United States Attorney Lynch to serve as Attorney General Lynch upon confirmation by the Senate. I had the opportunity to meet with Loretta Lynch this past January. She and I discussed how the Department of Justice can do more to give law enforcement the tools it needs, also to eliminate witness intimidation--a major issue in cities such as Philadelphia and others around the country. Also, we talked about reforming the juvenile justice system, and finally reducing tensions between police, law enforcement and the communities they serve. I was very impressed by United States Attorney Lynch. I believe she is well suited to address these and many other issues she will confront as the Attorney General of the United States. These issues, of course, are not only critical to Pennsylvania but also our whole country. I am also confident that Loretta Lynch, when she is confirmed--and I believe she will be--will continue the important work of Attorney General Holder to fairly enforce Federal voting and civil rights laws, to support equality for LGBT Americans, to work to reduce the over- incarceration of nonviolent offenders, and also to address disparities in our criminal justice system. Despite Loretta Lynch's record as a prosecutor, serving twice as the United States attorney in the State of New York, and despite her record and countless expressions of support from law enforcement, from civil rights advocates, and past Attorneys General, Loretta Lynch's nomination has been pending for 122 days before the Senate. This is the longest it has taken the U.S. Senate to vote on the nominee for Attorney General in 30 years. This is especially surprising given that the Senate has already confirmed Loretta Lynch twice. In both 2000 and 2010, the Senate confirmed Loretta Lynch to be the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, as I mentioned earlier. In each case her confirmation before the Senate was unanimous. Loretta Lynch's nomination we know is historic for many reasons, but the principal reason is she would be the first African-American woman to serve as the Nation's Attorney General. However, apart from the historic nature of her nomination, and I hope confirmation, Loretta Lynch is supremely qualified for this position for all the reasons I stated earlier. They could be summarized in a few words: integrity, intellect, and experience. I could add more words to that, but they are the qualities we want in any prosecutor and, of course, they are the qualities we want in an Attorney General. I believe we have those qualities with Attorney General Holder, and we want to have the confirmation completed for the new Attorney General nominee, Loretta Lynch. I strongly support Loretta Lynch's nomination, and I am pleased the majority leader has committed to considering her nomination on the Senate floor. I call on all of my colleagues to confirm Loretta Lynch without delay. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I wish to express support for Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Week, and to express the need for greater Federal investment in medical research. I regret that severe weather prevented me from doing this last week, which was Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Week. Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Week is a time for Americans everywhere to help others learn more about multiple sclerosis, and to do what they can to make a difference for those who suffer from this disease. Multiple sclerosis can be devastating for the individuals who suffer from it, as well as their families. Each year, I am proud to work with Senator Collins to recognize multiple sclerosis patients, their caregivers and their families by introducing a resolution in support of Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Week. Senator Collins and I worked together again on a resolution for 2015. I am pleased to say that this resolution, S. Res. 98, cleared the Senate on March 4. It is a testament to the support of the Senate for the 400,000 Americans who are estimated to be suffering from this terrible disease. While it is important to recognize the toll taken by multiple sclerosis, it is just as important to note that it is but one of many debilitating or deadly diseases for which we lack a cure, or for which existing treatments are inadequate. For many of these diseases, we have made great progress due to federally funded biomedical research. Unfortunately, when medical inflation is taken into account, the National Institute of Health's, NIH, budget has been falling for nearly a decade. This is unacceptable. We must reverse the decline in NIH funding, and work to support other Federal research programs. The research done by these programs saves lives and improves quality of life. Funding these programs also makes sound economic sense: Federally funded biomedical research is an important driver of economic growth throughout the United States. In 2013, NIH grants to my State alone supported an estimated 23,122 jobs. However, while the United States has been the world leader in medical research, other nations such as China are dramatically ramping up their investment, threatening our dominance in the field. We must work to continue investments that support patients, improve quality of life and create jobs that benefit all Americans. In addition to advocating for NIH funding with Senator Burr-- indicative of the bipartisan support the NIH budget enjoys--I am also a cosponsor of S. 289, the American Cures Act, which would authorize increases in Federal research budgets at the NIH, but also at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of Defense Health Program and the Veterans Medical and Prosthetics Research Program. As we support those suffering from multiple sclerosis, we must also remember the importance of federally funded medical research. We cannot afford, from a public health or economic standpoint, not to support biomedical progress.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the National Labor Relations Board and the reforms that have been proposed in the new rule. I rise first of all to provide by way of a predicate or background what happened in 1935 when the National Labor Relations Act was passed. There is a lot to talk about in that act, but just like when a major piece of legislation passes, we have findings that undergird the statute itself. I will not go through all of those today, but I think some of the language in there is especially appropriate for what we are talking about. The findings and summary spoke to the benefits of collective bargaining--the benefits of organizing and collectively bargaining, and asserted at one point very early in the statute, in the findings, the first couple of paragraphs of the findings that experience--I am paraphrasing this but I will get to specific words in a moment. But experience has shown that collective bargaining and organizing-- and these are the exact words--``safeguards commerce from injury, impairment or interruption.'' It goes on to talk about why it was better--why they believed it was better to pass a statute to resolve labor-management disputes instead of the old way, which was constant conflict, conflict fighting, in some cases even violence. So we did the right thing in 1935 as a country. We have had some history since then to draw from. The National Labor Relations Board, of course, is the entity that gives meaning to what we intend when we pass laws such as the National Labor Relations Act. Now we are having a dispute here in this body and in the other body as well about what these rules ought to be. What are the rules that govern the National Labor Relations Board, but in particular, what are the rules that govern elections? With all of the challenges we are facing in the country right now-- the middle class has nowhere near recovered from the last--the great recession. Wages have been declining over a generation, or at least not increasing at the level that costs have been increasing. So with all of that pressure on families, you could think this could be an area of common ground, but it is not. With all of those challenges facing middle-class families, it is disappointing that Republicans in the Senate have chosen to focus on rolling back the National Labor Relation's Board modest and commonsense reforms, to help workers get a seat at the table, so they can increase their wages and their economic security. Democrats are fighting to increase wages and we are also fighting for economic security, at the same time Republicans seem to be constantly fighting to increase corporate profits while making workers pay the price. All of us, whether we are Democrats or Republicans, should be coming together to expand workers' voices at the table and not attacking workers' right to collectively bargain. We are talking about something fundamental here, the opportunity to have an election in a workplace, and the benefits that flow from that. That is really about empowering workers. I believe that is one of the reasons why we passed the National Labor Relations Act, not just to have a board that can settle disputes, but to actually empower workers in ways they have not been empowered up to that point in our history. Empowering workers is an important part of building a stronger economy that works not just for those individual workers in that worksite, but in an economy that works for all families, not just the wealthiest few. When the workers have a seat at the bargaining table, our economy prospers and the middle class thrives. I have always believed that if we did not have unions and collective bargaining and organizing since World War II and even since the 1930s, we would have a much less robust middle class. Some people believe there would not be a middle case. But I am at least willing to assert that the right to organize and collectively bargain is not just good for that worker and his or her family, but it is also good for the economy as well. Those workers are the ones who drive the economy, not just the work they do, but the expenditures they make on behalf of their family. So even though workers are more productive in the United States than ever before, workers are still struggling with those stagnant wages. Today the middle class accounts for the smallest share of the Nation's income since World War II. Hard to believe that the middle class has been so devastated. We know from our history that when workers have a voice in the workplace through collective bargaining, wages increase, workplace safety improves, and workers have increased retirement and health security. All of those benefits have helped grow America's middle class. Labor unions helped workers share in that economic prosperity that they have helped to create through their own hard work. One of the great moments I have had as a Senator from Pennsylvania is when you go to a manufacturing plant and they take you on a tour. I am sure the Presiding Officer has done this a number of times. They take you on the tour not just to show how they are producing something, how they manufacture something, they are making something, but they are also very proud of the way they interact with and relate to and work with their employees. They go out of their way to point to a bulletin board or point to a data point in their record to say we have very few injuries, or zero injuries in a certain point of time. They take great pride in that because they know that if they have fewer injuries, they are going to be more productive. If they have fewer injuries, they are going to have employees who can produce on their behalf. One of the reasons they have fewer injuries over time in our economy and in those businesses is because workers have rights. Workers have rights they did not have in the early part of the 1900s. So we know from our history that this works, this process of making sure workers have a seat at the table. Now let's go to the National Labor Relations Board, their election reforms. These particular reforms make modest but, I would argue, very important updates to both modernize and streamline the election process, to prevent delays and reduce litigation. The current system is vulnerable to litigation that will drag out for a long period of time, drag out the election process and put workers' rights on hold. Those reforms will reduce unnecessary litigation that is not relevant to the outcome of the election. In the past, employers and unions had to send information about the election process to the Post Office, which would cost time and money. The new rule brings this election process into the 21st century--which is 15 years old now--by letting employers and unions file forms electronically. I think that is the least that can happen. You would think in this era we are living in, when everything that is done--most everything is done electronically, in banking and in other industries, that at a minimum we should have information transmitted about an election-- something valuable in a workplace. We hold elections with great regard and we believe in the sanctity of elections. So the least we could do is make sure those workers have the benefits of something that would transmit the information electronically. Sending that information in that fashion makes all of the sense in the world. The rule also allows the use of modern forms of communications through cell phones and emails. That is not asking too much, to be able to transmit information to prepare workers for an election by the use of email or cell phones. The reforms are commonsense steps to make sure the NLRB, the Board, is using its taxpayer dollars efficiently and effectively. These changes, as I referred to earlier, are not just good for workers, they also help businesses by streamlining the whole process, the elections process in this case. Right now the election process varies from region to region. Streamlining the process will provide certainty for both employers and workers themselves. The new rule allows businesses and unions to file forms electronically, as I mentioned, instead of using postage. This will save everyone time and money. So modernizing--this is what we are talking about here-- modernizing election rules allows businesses and unions to use these basic forms of communications in a way that promotes common sense. The rule will at long last level the playing field for small businesses. Right now the biggest corporations can exploit the system with long and costly litigation to deny workers, if they choose to do that, a fair up-or-down vote on joining a union. By making the election process more consistent and transparent, the Board's reforms level the playing field for the smaller businesses that already play fair. The NLRB, the Board itself, the representation rule, are in need of kind of basic updates. There have not been substantial updates to this NLRB election process since the 1970s. Today that leads to inefficiencies and delays. Right now big corporations take advantage of those inefficiencies to postpone and even deny workers the right to vote on union representation. Often, in the face of employer tactics, workers give up hope. In fact, one in three will never even get to have an election. That is not something the National Labor Relations Act intended. I do not think that is what anyone intended when it comes to these elections or the possibility of an election. So these amendments, these updates, these modernization reforms help restore balance and fairness to the election process. I am perplexed why this is the subject of so much controversy, because these are basic reforms to help people exercise their right to vote in the workplace, which is consistent with our values, consistent with our history, and also consistent with our efforts not just to move that worker and his or her family forward, and their business forward, but also to move the American economy and the middle class forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the same topic Senator Brown just spoke to. I appreciate what my colleague from Ohio brought to this Senate floor today when talking about trade. I especially commend him for not just his advocacy and his passion for standing up for workers, but for the persuasive case he makes against some of our trade policies--not just now but over time. We stand now poised to debate a set of issues which we haven't debated all that much in the 8 years I have been in the Senate--in this case first trade promotion authority, and then of course the Trans- Pacific Partnership. The people I represent in Pennsylvania know what is at stake here. Each of us, as American people, will have the chance to review the details of these proposals. But based upon past experience with trade agreements in our lifetime, and especially in the last 25 years, that past experience causes me grave concerns about what is in store, first and foremost for our workers, which of course means our economy. Time and again Pennsylvania workers and Pennsylvania businesses of all sizes have ended up with the short end of the stick on trade deals. The question they ask now is, what is in it for them? What is in it for workers? What is in it for companies across Pennsylvania and across the country? And, therefore, what is in it for all of us when it comes to our economic bottom line? Take the free trade agreement with South Korea just as a recent example. That was passed in 2011. I didn't support it. But here is what we were told before that. In December of 2010, the administration said the agreement would support 70,000 additional American jobs, and it would increase American exports by $10 billion to $11 billion. During the first 2 years that the agreement took effect, exports actually fell by $3.1 billion and imports grew by $5.6 billion, contributing to the loss of thousands of jobs. So that is one agreement, one example. Let's take the impact on a particular industry, the steel industry. By any measure, any review of World War II would indicate very clearly that the American steel industry and steelworkers played a substantial role in our ability to win World War II, to prevail in the most difficult of conflicts. What has happened since then? Well, we know that, for example, import surges from South Korea caused real damage to the steel industry in recent years, which has led directly to job losses in places such as Pennsylvania, for example. So workers want to know where the benefit is that is promised to them. Over and over again we hear these assertions: ``If we pass this agreement, this will be the impact on exports and imports'' and ``If we pass this agreement, this will be the net benefit to job creation and therefore to workers.'' Too often the result is otherwise. If you look at the numbers--if you look at the agreement, the industry, and then look at the numbers, in the United States we had a $66.5 billion deficit with free trade agreement partners in 2013. Our trade balance with our largest free trade agreement partners--Canada, Mexico, and Korea--is decidedly negative, not positive. So how is this time going to be different? I am concerned and a lot of Americans are concerned that past experience suggests broadly negative impacts on jobs, especially--as Senator Brown made reference to by way of the chart and in other ways-- especially as it relates to manufacturing jobs, the ones on which you can support a family, the jobs that lead to the kind of innovation that allows us to be one step ahead of the world. The Economic Policy Institute, for example, estimates that 26,300 jobs were lost due to the trade deficit with Mexico between 1994 and 2011 in the aftermath of NAFTA, as Senator Brown referred to, and 122,600 jobs were lost to China in the 12 years since China joined the World Trade Organization. Between these two countries alone, the average impact on Pennsylvania was some 148,900 jobs lost in Pennsylvania. So we have lost almost 150,000 jobs in Pennsylvania directly attributable to two factors: the impact of China joining the World Trade Organization and the impact of the trade deficit with Mexico. When we look at the big picture, we have two possible areas of concern with the so-called TPP--the Trans-Pacific Partnership--and by proxy the trade promotion authority as a part of that. There are labor and human rights concerns as well as currency manipulation. Members of Congress and labor groups across the country have expressed concerns about the so-called TPP and the countries we are negotiating with, in particular Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei, and Mexico. Vietnam, as an example, does not offer the establishment of independent labor unions and has opposed the inclusion of any provision that would change this aspect of domestic law. The State Department has noted that basic labor freedoms are often restricted in both Mexico and Malaysia. Brunei has recently implemented a harsh form of sharia law that violates basic human rights standards. How about currency manipulation? American manufacturers feel the pain from undervalued foreign currencies all the time, and they time and again have demanded action from both parties and both Houses of Congress. Currency manipulation concerns are urgent not just because of Japan's policies and the potential future inclusion of China in TPP down the road but also because virtually every negotiating partner has a currency that is undervalued relative to the U.S. dollar--every partner in the proposed TPP. As of January of this year, according to the Economist, 10 of the 11 negotiating partners of the United States had undervalued currency. Seven of those countries, including Japan, had currencies that were at least 25 percent undervalued relative to the U.S. dollar. For far too long this administration has allowed foreign countries to stack the deck against U.S. workers when it comes to currency policies by manipulating their currencies. We have a chance in the TPP negotiations to do something about this. All of us believe our workers could out-compete any workers in the world if they were given the chance, if they were given basic fairness and a level playing field. Pennsylvanians want Congress and the administration to focus on policies that lead to both good jobs and good wages. So let's give our workers the kind of support we gave past generations. Give our workers a level playing field so that they can out-compete and therefore out- produce any workers in the world. I am afraid these agreements are not a step in that direction. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I wish to remember Mr. James Koller, a devoted father, husband and Pennsylvania leader. Jim passed away on February 3, 2015, after a 6-year battle with ALS. Jim's life was defined by his many passions. A successful lawyer and businessman, he was also deeply engaged with his community. A graduate of Marquette University and the Dickinson School of Law, he practiced real estate law in Philadelphia before cofounding Vesterra Corporation, a commercial real estate development company through which Jim built many strong community relationships. Alongside his professional success, Jim maintained an active role in his church and enjoyed an active lifestyle. Jim's diagnosis with ALS 6 years ago did not slow him down; rather, it pushed him to do even more to combat the disease. Along with his family and friends, he started Team Koller, a fundraising group that participated in local ALS awareness events and raised tens of thousands of dollars for research and treatment. Even at the most difficult times, Jim stayed focused on solutions, seeking answers and help for those afflicted by ALS. Although we mourn Jim's passing, his selfless and passionate efforts give me hope that we may soon find a cure for this menacing disease. May we continue to live and fight as James Koller did, with courage and fortitude. My thoughts and prayers are with Jim's wife Marianne, his sons, James and Kevin, and the rest of his family in this difficult time.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, as I have every year since 2007, I rise today to commemorate Black History Month. This year we are privileged to recognize Dean JoAnne A. Epps, the dean of Temple University's Beasley School of Law. Dean Epps is a woman who has made significant contributions to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Nation by promoting opportunity and diversity throughout our legal institutions. JoAnne's life and career have been a testament to hard work and following her dreams. Her achievements are substantial, and she has worked to inspire others to fulfill their dreams, while advancing the cause of social justice to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to reach their full potential. Today I am proud to honor JoAnne Epps as a leader in law and education and highlight some of the ways in which she has demonstrated the power of dreams by opening doors of opportunity for women and minorities throughout her career. JoAnne Epps's story serves as an example of where our dreams can take us. She is a native of Cheltenham, PA. For those who don't know the geography of our State, it is in the southeastern corner of our State in Montgomery County. She attended Trinity College in Connecticut. As an undergraduate JoAnne planned to follow in her mother's footsteps and become a legal secretary; however, she distinguished herself throughout her undergraduate career, and her mother and professors encouraged her to dream big. She applied to and was accepted by Yale Law School, where she was one of 40 women and just 10 African Americans in her class of 150. JoAnne entered law school having never known an adult attorney and often experienced discomfort that her background differed so significantly from those of many of her classmates. Despite these challenges, JoAnne Epps remained focused on the opportunities ahead of her. Following graduation in 1976, JoAnne devoted herself to public service, becoming a deputy city attorney for the city of Los Angeles, CA, and ultimately returning to Pennsylvania as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. After that work as a prosecutor, in 1985 she joined the faculty of the Beasley School of Law at Temple University, utilizing the experience she had gained as a prosecutor to instruct students on criminal procedure, evidence, and trial advocacy. Exhibiting strong leadership qualities and a gift for teaching, JoAnne was soon named associate dean of academic affairs, and in 2008 was named dean of Temple Law School. As dean, JoAnne has worked tirelessly not only to advance the quality of legal education but to instill in students the values she believes define the legal profession. They are service, integrity, and passion. JoAnne has expanded opportunities for students at Temple to apply these values to a legal career by implementing programs that focus on hands- on legal experience, both through high-quality clinical programs and through an innovative experiential first-year course as curriculum. This work has led to the creation of the Stephen and Sandra Sheller Center for Social Justice at Temple Law School, and we are honored today to have both Steve and Sandy Sheller with us. The Sheller Center encourages early community involvement and a commitment to social justice in Temple Law students by facilitating collaboration with community groups, the university community, and the Philadelphia and Pennsylvania legal communities to improve access to justice for underserved communities. It is a truly inspiring project. Even as JoAnne innovates at a schoolwide level, she has not lost her dedication to the individual connections fostered through teaching. She continues to share her experience and insight with first-year law students by teaching a course in litigation basics each fall. JoAnne has employed her talent for teaching not only to the benefit of Temple University and the Pennsylvania legal community but to further social justice objectives on an international scale. JoAnne has been an advocacy instructor for attorneys at the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the Beijing Supreme People's Procuratorate. In 2007 and 2008, she worked with a small group of lawyers to provide training for Sudanese lawyers representing victims of the crisis in Darfur on evidence, advocacy, and substantive international criminal law with a focus on practice before the International Criminal Court. JoAnne's service and impact on Temple Law School is made all the more impressive in light of the myriad of other roles she has taken on to advance the causes of social justice through legal institutions. In 2001, JoAnne was appointed by the mayor of Philadelphia to chair the Mayor's Task Force on Police Discipline, and in 2011 she was appointed by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to monitor the city of Philadelphia's compliance with a settlement concerning stop-and-frisk procedures. She has a long history of service on various commissions designed to increase access to justice, including the Philadelphia Bar Association's Committee to Promote Justice, the board of directors of the Defender Association of Philadelphia, the advisory board of the Public Interest Law Center, the Pennsylvania Commission for Justice Initiatives, and too many others to name today. In recognition of this work, in 2003 Temple Law School presented her with the Gideon Award, given to acknowledge dedication to the cause of justice. JoAnne Epps has had a great career and has had great success as a lawyer, as a teacher, as an advocate, and as a prosecutor despite the challenges of being an African-American woman entering a field that is predominantly white and male. She consistently worked to open the doors of opportunities to women and minorities who face similar challenges. At Temple, JoAnne served as a member of the Women's Studies Program Steering Committee, and she remains an affiliated member of the Women's Studies Department at the law school. She has also previously served as an adviser to both the Women's Law Caucus and the Black Law Students Association. Outside of Temple Law, JoAnne served as vice chair of the Pennsylvania Gender Task Force and as a member of the Third Circuit Task Force on Equal Treatment in the Courts, also serving on the Third Circuit task force commission on race and ethnicity. JoAnne testified on behalf of the National Association of Women Lawyers at the confirmation hearing of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. In 2014, she was awarded the Justice Sotomayor Diversity Award by the Philadelphia Bar Association in recognition of her work on behalf of women and minorities in the legal profession. JoAnne has said the following about her legal career, and I am quoting: I spent much of my career not seeing ahead of me someone who was at all like me, and I've had to make my way without that. I want to be a resource for young people entering the profession that I never had. Joanne's dedication to both legal education and the legal profession has helped empower countless young attorneys to exceed expectations and fulfill their dreams. JoAnne Epps is here today in the gallery of the Senate, and as the rules tell us, we are not allowed to acknowledge those in the gallery. I am saying that for my friend. But she is joined by family and friends, and I am going to go through a list here. If I miss someone, someone will tell me later. Starting with her husband L. Harrison Jay, her uncle Harold Ashton, and her cousins Eric Ashton, Joan and Tommie Frye, Donnie, Debbie, Adrienne, and Christopher Jackson, and Marcia and Glenn Yarbrough--I will hear if I missed someone a little later, but we are honored she is here with us. We are honored her family is here on this special day. Today we honor JoAnne Epps, the dean of Temple Law School, for her significant work to advance access to justice and for inspiring and empowering new generations of attorneys to emulate their commitment to service, integrity, and passion. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the 50th anniversary of Medicare as well. I commend the remarks of both the senior Senator from Oregon and the senior Senator from Illinois about this 50-year anniversary since President Lyndon Johnson first sent his message to Congress that would later become both the Medicare and Medicaid Programs. As was referred to earlier, there are 100 million Americans benefiting, including over 4.8 million in my home State of Pennsylvania, when we consider both programs together. When President Johnson sent this message, he said: Our first concern must be to assure that the advance of medical knowledge leaves none behind. We can--and we must-- strive now to assure the availability of and accessibility to the best health care for all Americans, regardless of age or geography or economic status. So said President Johnson all those years ago, and how prescient he was and how knowledgeable he was as well to be thinking about the future and to be considering advances in technology and holding all of us to the highest possible standard when it came to health care for older Americans or health care for the poor and for children. We know that in the ensuing 50 years we have strived to make that vision of President Johnson a reality, first, of course, with Medicare and Medicaid; and then more recently--``recently'' meaning the last 20 years or so--with the Children's Health Insurance Program, known by the acronym CHIP; and then followed by, a number of years after that, the Affordable Care Act, which included an expansion of the Medicaid Program, providing coverage to millions more Americans. We know that when Medicaid was created in 1965, the U.S. Government put forth a promise to ensure that the most vulnerable members of society would have access to health care. Whether it is our children or whether it is frail, elderly members of our family living in nursing homes or individuals with disabilities, Medicaid ensures they have access to health care. So we have made great strides. Let me quote again from President Johnson: Poor families increasingly are forced to turn to overcrowded hospital emergency rooms and to overburdened city clinics as their only resource to meet their routine health care needs. Again, President Johnson was way ahead of his time in dealing with what was then a problem and still remains a problem but less so a problem because of Medicaid. This important lifeline--Medicaid--to health care, having been created 50 years ago, was strengthened in 2010 and helps ensure that millions of Americans have access to quality, comprehensive health care. We must continue to make sure that we guarantee Medicaid remains strong and provides such needed care to those in our society who often get overlooked. We must never forget that Medicaid is the program that many middle-class families and lower income older citizens who are on assistance and people with disabilities turn to when they need extended nursing home care, sometimes referred to as long-term care. So when it comes to long-term care for poorer families as well as long-term care for middle-class families, often millions of Americans are turning and have turned for their long-term care to Medicaid, and we should remember that. As we celebrate this 50th anniversary, let's always ensure that both Medicare and Medicaid remain strong programs that so many Americans can turn to. We must do our best to be true to Lyndon Johnson's vision ``that the advance of medical knowledge leaves none behind.'' It is a very important anniversary, and it is a good reminder about our obligations in the Senate to protect both Medicare and Medicaid. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, before this Congress ends, I wanted to pay tribute to several of my colleagues who will not be here when we convene next year. Some chose not to run again, and others unfortunately lost their reelection campaigns, but we will miss them all next year. I begin in order of seniority. Tim Johnson Mr. President, I wish to begin with Senator Tim Johnson. After several years of service in South Dakota, where he received the Outstanding Citizen Award and the Billie Sutton Award for Legislative Achievement, Tim was elected to the House of Representatives in 1986. He served there for 10 years, earning many distinctions, among them, one for passing more legislation than the other 50 first-term Members. In 1996 he was elected to the Senate, where he has served three terms. In recent years Senator Johnson has served as chairman of the banking committee, of which he has been a member since 1997. Over the years he has advocated for community banks in South Dakota, worked to pass the Safe and Fair Deposit Insurance Act of 2005, which updated the Federal deposit insurance system, and pushed to deal with the special needs of consumers in rural areas. Tim has also shown immense courage in dealing with health issues and has been an exemplary public servant. We will miss him next year and wish him and Barbara well. Mary Landrieu Mr. President, Senator Mary Landrieu started a career of public service in the Louisiana State Legislature and then as State treasurer. She was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1996 becoming her State's first female Senator. Senator Landrieu has always fought for her State, a fact never more apparent than in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita when she fought valiantly for disaster funding and reforms that helped countless people in Louisiana. Mary has also been a champion for our children, and I have seen her commitment as we worked together on adoption and foster care issues over the years. We will miss Mary's spirit, but we know she will never stop fighting for what she believes in. I wish Mary and Frank well in this new chapter of their lives. Mark Pryor Mr. President, Senator Mark Pryor comes from a family with a history of public service. Mark served as Arkansas attorney general before being elected to the Senate in 2002, occupying the same Senate seat his father David held. As a member of the Agriculture Committee, Mark fought hard to protect the interests of Arkansas' farmers, and through his position on the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee he pushed for regulatory reform, all the while asking how each decision he made would impact people back in Arkansas. Through his work, Mark embodied what it meant to be a public servant. Mark Udall Mr. President, Senator Mark Udall's family has served the United States for decades. His cousin Tom has served beside him in the Senate for the past 6 years. His father Morris ``Mo'' Udall was a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 30 years and also ran for President. His uncle Stewart served as Interior Secretary under Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s. Before being elected to the Senate in 2008, Mark served in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Colorado State Legislature. Through his position on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Mark has continued his family's commitment to our public lands and resources, chairing the National Parks Subcommittee. Senator Udall has also worked hard to help the U.S. Government get its fiscal house in order, pushing his colleagues to make tough choices today to help create a better tomorrow. As a member of the Armed Services and Select Intelligence Committees, Mark has advocated for more transparent detention and drone policies and pushed to make public the ``Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program.'' Kay Hagan Mr. President, Senator Kay Hagan spent 10 years serving in the North Carolina State senate before being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2008. I have had the pleasure of sitting next to Kay on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and working with her on issues such as medication therapy management to help ensure our seniors are taking the prescription drugs that help keep them healthy and the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act that provides funding for the screening of newborn babies for heritable disorders, allowing them the earliest possible access to treatments. Through her position on the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, Senator Hagan has pushed to protect and grow North Carolina jobs. On the Armed Services Committee, she has fought for North Carolina's military families. I wish Kay and Chip well in the years ahead. Mark Begich Mr. President, Senator Mark Begich arrived in the Senate in 2008, having previously served as mayor of Anchorage. Mark worked hard and accomplished a lot in his 6 years here, but what I will always remember is Mark's commitment to our veterans. Alaska has more, veterans per capita than any other state in our Nation, and through his position on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Begich has been their champion. I thank Mark for his public service and his commitment, and I wish him and Deborah well. Jay Rockefeller

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I am honored to be able to rise tonight. I will have a longer statement later to talk about the ABLE Act that Senator Burr and I worked on coming through the Finance Committee and talking with Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Hatch. I want to thank the two leaders--Majority Leader Reid and Republican Leader McConnell--for not having just a bipartisan effort in the Senate but really a bicameral support for this legislation--over 400 Members of Congress supporting the ABLE Act, simple. For years we have created incentives in the Tax Code to save for higher education, the cost of college, to save for retirement. Now at long last for Americans who have a disability, those families will be able to save for a disability, whether it is to pay for health care or education, the basic expenses that these individuals with disabilities have wanted to save for, for many years. I am honored to be part of it. I will have a longer statement later. This is a great testament to bipartisanship, coming together on such an important issue. We believe--this is what undergirds the ABLE Act-- people with a disability have the ability to live a full life if we give them the tools. One of those tools is an incentive in the Tax Code to save for the future for an individual with a disability. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I wanted to speak today about Senator Carl Levin and his years of service to the Senate and the people of Michigan. Senator Levin has served 36 years and is Michigan's longest serving senator. John F. Kennedy once said that ``leadership and learning are indispensable to each other.'' Senator Levin's time here has been an illustration of that statement, and I have experienced this firsthand ever since I arrived in the Senate in 2007 and sought his guidance on difficult issues like the war in Iraq. He is one of the best informed and knowledgeable members of the Senate. Carl Levin has been a leader for years on the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Senator Levin has served as the Democratic leader of the Armed Services committee since 1997, a term that overlapped with several defining events for U.S. national security, including the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the beginnings of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the operation against Osama bin Laden and the current conflict against the terrorist group ISIS. Chairman Levin has guided our caucus through the National Defense Authorization Act process every year, working to ensure members have an opportunity to include their priority issues in the bill. I am grateful for Senator Levin's support of my efforts to ensure Afghan women and girls remain at the forefront of our Afghanistan policy through this transition period. One of Senator Levin's most important legacies will be his thoughtful and principled opposition to shifting attention away from the fight against al Qaeda in Afghanistan to Iraq. Our caucus will miss Carl Levin's steady hand guiding us through these important matters. At the helm of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Senator Levin has led the charge against some of the worst abuse and corruption occurring in our country. Under Senator Levin's leadership the subcommittee conducted an eighteen month investigation into the causes of the financial crisis that culminated in four hearings in April 2010. The hearings brought forth information that helped craft the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. He also led an investigation into abusive and unfair practices of the credit card industry, which would lead to the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act, along with investigations into tax shelters, offshore tax havens and Federal contractor tax delinquency, among other issues. In 2012, the National Journal wrote that ``the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations is one of the few institutions in Congress that's still working. Carl Levin is a big reason why.'' Carl Levin's legacy can be summed up in one word: integrity. His commitment to our security and our servicemembers is incomparable. We wish him well as he returns to Michigan and moves on to new challenges and I thank him for his service. Tom Harkin Madam President, I also wanted to speak about my colleague Tom Harkin who will be retiring at the end of this Congress. I commend him for his 40 years of service in Congress for the people of Iowa. Senator Hubert Humphrey once said that the moral test of government should be how it treats those in the dawn of life, our children; those in the twilight of life, our older citizens; and those in the shadows of life, people with disabilities, among others. Tom Harkin's work in the House and Senate has been a testament to what Senator Humphrey said. Senator Harkin has never hesitated to stand up and fight for those without power. He is also proud of the legacy of the Great Society under President Lyndon Johnson and never shies away from reminding us of the work that was done then, or how much more we still have to do. When it comes to protecting and championing people with disabilities, there is no equal to Tom Harkin. He helped write the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, of 1990 and the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. These bills did for people with disabilities what the civil rights acts of the 1950s and 1960s did for African-Americans. He authored the Television Decoder Circuitry Act to create universal closed captioning and he expanded services for children with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, IDEA. Under the Workforce Investment Opportunity Act, he enhanced employment opportunities for young people with disabilities and under the Affordable Care Act he created the Community First Choice Option to give states that offer services to people with disabilities outside of nursing homes extra federal funding. Senator Harkin pushed the issue of prevention and the health and wellness of Americans long before those issues became national themes. Senator Harkin wrote the prevention title in the Affordable Care Act and introduced the first bill that allowed the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, to regulate tobacco. He is also the reason the word ``Prevention'' is included in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's name. Child labor is another area where Tom was ahead of the curve. The Clinton Administration's Executive Order, ``Prohibition of Acquisition of Products Produced by Forced and Indentured Child Labor,'' was backed by Senator Harkin and he helped obtain the adoption and Senate ratification of United Nations Convention 182, a treaty that called for the elimination of the worst forms of child labor. On a personal note, I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Harkin and his staff on the HELP Committee for their help in getting three bills I introduced this Congress passed into law--the Children's Hospital GME Support Reauthorization Act, the Emergency Medical Services for Children Reauthorization Act and the Traumatic Brain Injury Reauthorization Act. Without the efforts of Chairman Harkin and his team, these bills would not have moved forward. The late Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, once said that ``Politics is not just about power and money games, politics can be about the improvement of people's lives, about lessening human suffering in our world and bringing about more peace and more justice.'' Tom Harkin is a living example of those words. Our Nation and our world are better today because of his life of service. Jay Rockefeller Madam President, as the 113 Congress comes to a close, the time has come to say goodbye to several colleagues and friends who will leave at the end of this Congress. Today, I would like to pay tribute to our friend and colleague, Jay Rockefeller. Senator Rockefeller has served the people of West Virginia for 50 years, the last thirty of them in the United States Senate. While Senator Rockefeller has accomplished many notable things in his decades of service, you can really sum up much of what he did for our country in one word--kids. Nelson Mandela once said ``There can be no keener revelation of a society's soul than the way in which it treats its children.'' Jay Rockefeller worked tirelessly to ensure that we never lost sight of our children as we worked on issues large and small. One key example of his advocacy is the Children's Health Insurance Program or CHIP as it is better known. In the 1990s, members like Jay Rockefeller came together and created CHIP to ensure low-income children of working parents had access to health care. When my father was governor of Pennsylvania, he signed into law the CHIP program that initially insured over 50,000 children across the state and served as a model for the national program. On a personal level, I thank Senator Rockefeller for helping to expand this program to children around the country and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure CHIP remains strong for children in the years ahead. In 2009 health care reform was on the agenda again and Jay Rockefeller played a key role in getting a number of important provisions included. He pushed to expand Medicaid and to make sure insurance companies actually spent the bulk of dollars on health care and not administrative costs. He also worked to ensure that information provided to consumers buying insurance on the exchange could be understood by all, and, of course, he led the charge to protect CHIP kids and make sure they did not end up with the short end of the stick. Senator Rockefeller's work extends far beyond health care and children. Coal miners and their families have had no better friend in the Senate than Jay Rockefeller. He has tirelessly fought and won battles to protect their health, safety and pensions while also protecting and preserving Black Lung benefits for workers made sick by doing their jobs. His advocacy in this body will be missed. Now it is up to the rest of us to carry the torch. Senator Rockefeller is quoted as follows in the Charleston Daily Mail last year: ``Rockefeller said he knew all the Kennedys well but liked Bobby best. `Because he struck me,' Rockefeller said. `He had a soul, and there are a lot of photographs of him in West Virginia later when he ran for president sitting on a slag heap, looking mournful, looking off into the distance, thinking, `Why does this condition exist, what can I do?' '' Jay Rockefeller also has a soul and he has spent his life asking those same questions and finding ways to make things better. We will miss him in the Senate. We will miss his conscience and his voice, but we will never forget his example. I thank him for his decades of service and wish him well. Mary Landrieu

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, Jermyn and Northeastern Pennsylvania lost a long-treasured member of the community when Leo Moskovitz passed away on November 24 at the age of 109. Although he lived for well over a century, his death feels premature to his family and his community. His wife of 45 years, Ann, described him as one of a kind, a fantastic man in every sense of the word. His contributions to the Commonwealth, both public and private, are many and will not be soon forgotten. As one of Northeastern Pennsylvania's true pioneers, he helped transform the region's economic and cultural outlook over the past century. Those who knew him likened him to a real-life history book, reciting stories from 80 or 90 years ago as if they had happened the day before. On any day of the week, he could catalogue the many evolutions the greater Scranton region went through with perfect detail. As founder and president of the First National Bank of Jermyn, Leo presided over significant growth in the bank's assets, while always offering opportunity to the small business owners and people of Lackawanna County. He was a banker who bet on people and usually won for all concerned. Leo was ahead of his time in many ways, including promoting women in an era when such a practice was far from commonplace. From the vocational schools he helped establish, to the numerous art and cultural organizations he and his wife supported throughout the region, Leo Moskovitz's love and compassion for his community and its people endured for over a century, and will continue to shine for many years to come.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY. I rise today to discuss the fight against ISIS and the debate we are having here in the Senate and across the country about the authorization for use of military force, known by the acronym AUMF. The debate about the appropriate use of force is, I believe, healthy for our country. The American people deserve to know when and how our servicemembers are going to be deployed to protect our national security interests. All Senators in this body have an abiding obligation to take the time to learn about this issue and to ask questions about our strategy, to thoroughly debate the strategy and the issues that relate to the authorization for use of force, and then we have an obligation to vote on the grave question of the use of military force. It has been 6 months since ISIS began its major offensive in Iraq, taking control of key boarder crossings and the city of Mosul. The President has laid out since that time a strategy for combating ISIS through all available means--military action, diplomatic coalition building, coordinating efforts to cut off financing and recruitment, and providing humanitarian assistance. The Administration has taken these actions under previous authorizations. In these weeks and months I have consulted with Administration officials, both military and civilian, outside experts and former diplomats, as I know many of our colleagues have. I also have listened to my constituents in Pennsylvania. We owe it to the American people to have a debate and a vote on a new authorization for use of military force that clarifies, and if necessary, places limitations on the President's authority in this fight against ISIS. We know that 1,830 servicemembers, 91 of whom were from Pennsylvania, have been killed in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, and 3,482 servicemembers, of which 197 were from Pennsylvania, have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Those are two conflicts, and in Pennsylvania alone the killed-in-action number was 91 in Afghanistan and 197 in Iraq. Thousands more have been wounded in action from Pennsylvania and from across the country--some of them grievously, permanently injured because of their service. I am mindful, as I know many are here, that with both the 2001 and 2002 authorizations for use of force, Congress moved very quickly to take that action. I understand that. We know in hindsight that in the case of Iraq, at least, mistakes were made because leaders did not take the time to debate and ask tough questions and demand answers to those tough questions. I believe it is appropriate for us to do the following: thoroughly debate this AUMF, as we should every time we consider sending U.S. servicemembers into harm's way; second, to be prepared to continually reassess and debate our strategy against ISIS to ensure it is achieving our national security goals. We all hope to develop an AUMF that has broad bipartisan support. However, our priority must be to give the President clear and specific authority to continue the fight against ISIS. The Administration should have come forward with a recommendation early in the process for what they would like to see in an authorization for use of military force. I welcomed Secretary Kerry's testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee yesterday. That hearing was an important step in the right direction. It is appropriate for the Congress to not only conduct rigorous oversight of the executive branch's decisions about military force but also, from time to time, to take steps to shape or place boundaries around the Administration's strategy. I appreciate Chairman Menendez's efforts to craft an AUMF proposal that satisfies the needs of the Administration and the concerns from both sides of the aisle and across our country. The Congress should move forward with an authorization for use of military force which addresses the following: First, this AUMF should not allow for any significant deployment of U.S. troops in traditional ground combat roles. This is consistent with what the President has determined is necessary at this time. We also need to see nations in the region step up to do the fighting. We can't just have--to use an old expression from Pennsylvania--coat holders. That is someone that says you go do the fighting and I will hold your coat while you fight. We need a real coalition which we have in place now but it has to be built and strengthened and fortified and sustained. That coalition, especially in the case of members of the coalition from the region, will contribute fighters to the battlefield because it is their region. It is their conflict as much as it is for other nations in the coalition. When I say we cannot have a coalition of coat holders, I am serious about that. We need a coalition that will help us. We have already done a lot, and our people have, our taxpayers have, and our soldiers have. We need a real coalition that will do the fighting. We also know that ISIS has taken American hostages before and will try to do so again. If, for example, the Administration has a chance to bring one of these Americans home, I want them--the Administration--to take action expeditiously and with clear authority. If the Administration disagrees with the current proposal for authorization for exceptional circumstances or operations--for example, a search and rescue operation inside Syria or the recovery of an American hostage--the Administration should propose to us language they find acceptable to use in those difficult situations. Second, this authorization for force should not be geographically limited. ISIS and its associated forces do not and will not respect sovereign borders. However, I would like to see language that requires the Administration consult closely with Congress if they want to consider U.S. military operation against ISIS in countries beyond Iraq and Syria. Expanding this fight geographically could have the unintended effect of prompting unrest in other countries or pushing recruits into the arms of ISIS. Third, this authorization for use of force should have a reasonable timeline--something along the order of 3 years--with the explicit option for the administration to extend it a bit longer if needed. We cannot know exactly how long it will take us and our coalition partners to degrade and defeat this terrorist organization. However, the AUMF should not be open-ended in the way that the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs were. We have seen how difficult it is to shift gears or even to repeal an existing authorization for use of military force. Fourth, and finally, this authorization must also address the nonmilitary components of the administrations's strategy. I was one of the first Members to call for greater support for the moderate well- vetted Syrian opposition. We know that opposition, especially in the north, is fractured and suffering, especially under the continual onslaught from Mr. Assad's barrel bombs--not to mention other actions he has taken against the opposition. Although efforts to support them are ramping up, the brutal Assad regime has done significant damage. That is an understatement. Further, the Assad regime continues to commit unspeakable atrocities against Syrian civilians, starving, torturing, or indiscriminately murdering them in violation of international law and U.N. Security Council resolutions--that is plural. I have also emphasized on a bipartisan basis with Senator Rubio several years ago the importance of cutting off ISIS's finances. This could include airstrikes against known oil-smuggling pipelines or additional sanctions against facilitators. I should say with Senator Rubio that the financing efforts or the cutting off of the financing was this year. I have worked with him in other years on other parts of Syrian policy. As we have heard multiple administration leaders today say, there is no purely military solution to this conflict with ISIS. I would also say that if we have an authorization for force, this bill should include strict reporting requirements that press the administration to answer a series of questions: First, what are you going to do to support the moderate opposition in Syria? I have raised this over and over again with the administration and still do not have satisfactory answers. Second, what steps are you taking to address the Assad regime's brutal barrel bomb campaign, and what are you doing to bring about a political settlement to the conflict in Syria? Third, how is the military campaign helping to cut off the financial support that ISIS is receiving, as I mentioned before? There is strong bipartisan agreement that ISIS proposes a clear and proximate if not immediate threat to our national security interests and those of our partners. I believe we can reach the same level of bipartisan agreement on an authorization for the use of military force. We have no greater or more sacred responsibility than to carefully and thoroughly consider when and how we send American men and women in uniform into harm's way. I urge my colleagues in both parties to engage in this debate and to work expeditiously to pass an authorization for the use of military force. I would have preferred and I know many would have preferred that we would have passed a bill before we adjourn this year, knowing that in this holiday season there are servicemembers already deployed away from home, from their families, to support this operation, Operation Inherent Resolve. If we cannot get that done by the end of this year, where the debate would not be fully developed enough to pass an authorization, we must get it done early in 2015. It must be among our first orders of business in the new year, in the new Congress when we come back in early January. This is a very grave matter. It is among the highest and most difficult responsibilities Congress has. I believe we will discharge that obligation with a full debate, with a debate that is well-informed and a debate that every Member participates in before we make a decision about the authorization for the use of force. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent all time be yielded back.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise this evening to talk about two of our judicial nominations who are before the Senate today. We have gotten through one vote, and we will be having several more on a number of judges. The two I will speak about are Mark Kearney and Jerry Pappert, and I know my colleague Senator Toomey is with us and I will make some remarks and I will obviously be here for his remarks as well. First and foremost, I am grateful to be working with Senator Toomey on these nominations as we have on others. It is a long and difficult process for everyone, ever more so if you are a candidate, someone who puts yourself forward to be a U.S. district court judge. We are grateful that individuals are willing to do that, but it does not work unless we work together here in the Senate, and Senator Toomey and I have been working together over several years now. We have got one additional nomination after this, we hope, by the end of the year. I would like to give a little bit of biographical background on both of these nominees. Mark Kearney is currently managing shareholder at Elliot Greenleaf & Siedzikowski, where he has worked since 1990. He has spent almost a quarter of a century in a firm that does a wide variety of legal matters. I know this firm well and I know the work they do on litigation and all kinds of complex litigation. Mark has broad and diverse experience in that firm. Previously he worked at the Elliot Mannino & Flaherty firm, going back and forth in his days at the Elliot Greenleaf & Siedzikowski firm. After law school he clerked in the Delaware Court of Chancery following his legal training. Of course that is a court that has a high degree of specialization. A lot of business matters and obviously corporate matters come before that very well-known court in Delaware. Mark Kearney is also obviously very active in his community and I have known him for a couple of decades now. He serves on various charitable and civic organizations including director for Legal Aid of Southeastern Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Bar Institute as well, and the Montgomery County Bar Foundation. Finally, in that vein of service to his community, he has worked as a volunteer child advocate of the Montgomery Child Advocacy Project since 2007 and served as director of that organization from 2009 to 2012. Montgomery County is one of our largest counties by way of population, just bordering Philadelphia. It is a big county that has challenges as any county of its size, and to have a judge--or nominee whom we hope will become a judge after our voting--to have spent that time with children in an advocacy position is a great testament to Mark's commitment. So whether you focus on his academic credentials as someone who had a wide variety of matters come before him as a lawyer in a big firm, whether it is volunteer work and therefore his commitment to service, Mark is well prepared and I believe one of the best nominees we have put forward for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. I have known him a long time. When I make a decision about whether to support a particular candidate for judge of any court, but especially a district court judge, I look at their academic training and experience and whether it is experience as a lawyer and advocate or in some cases a lawyer as well as a judge. You have to make an assessment of someone's character, their integrity, their judicial temperament, all of those qualities and attributes you would want to find in a judge. On all those, Mark Kearney is someone I know personally who possesses those attributes and qualifications. But I also know him as someone who just by virtue of his record that we can recite here is well prepared to serve as a district court judge. I would ask my colleagues to give him on this vote all the consideration that is warranted. Jerry Pappert, more formally Gerald Pappert--I think I am allowed to call him Jerry until he becomes a judge--is someone I met in State government. I was in an elected position--it is now 18 years ago I was elected, and early in my term I was having a meeting with the attorney general, Mike Fisher, who is now on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Attorney General Fisher brought his chief of staff, his first deputy, as they called it in that department, to a meeting with my chief of staff and we sat down at a restaurant to have pizza one night to talk about how our offices could work together, even though they don't have an overlapping jurisdiction. But it was one of those meetings you never forget. It was the first time I met Jerry Pappert. I knew then of his commitment to service, because he was serving in the top position in the State attorney general's office. Years later he became an attorney general when there was a vacancy. He served as the attorney general of Pennsylvania. He currently serves as the chairman of the Pennsylvania Banking and Securities Commission in Harrisburg. Previously he was a legislative appointee to the Commonwealth Financing Authority and Department of Community and Economic Development, a very important authority which makes determinations about where to invest tax dollars--economic development dollars--across Pennsylvania and how to make those difficult decisions about where dollars should go and how to grow the economy. From December of 2003 to January of 2005, as I mentioned, he was the attorney general of the State, and prior to that serving as first deputy. As attorney general he was in the National Association of Attorneys General, dealing with issues that relate to Pennsylvania and law enforcement and prosecution, but also on national issues that are common to all the States. So I know Jerry well and I know him to be someone of the highest caliber and integrity and commitment to service and commitment to justice. His long and significant history of service to our Commonwealth prepares him well to serve his Commonwealth, but also a Federal district court position as a U.S. district court judge. I can say the same of Jerry that I said of Mark Kearney, in terms of his qualifications, experience, but also his character and his integrity. I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak about both of these candidates and certainly am grateful to have a chance to work with Senator Toomey on moving these nominations forward and we hope tonight bringing them to a conclusion upon confirmation. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I would like to thank Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Alexander, and sponsors Senator Mikulski and Senator Burr for their tremendous work to bring the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014 to passage. I thank all of my colleagues in the House and Senate who helped get us to this point. As many of my colleagues have commented, it is well past time that we take up a reauthorization of this important legislation. The Child Care and Development Block Grant, CCDBG, has not been reauthorized since 1996. In the nearly two decades since, our understanding of early childhood development, and the importance of high-quality child care and early learning, has expanded dramatically. Investing in high-quality early learning opportunities such as child care and pre-K sets children on the path to success. This bill updates Federal standards to ensure that the Federal Government is supporting high-quality child care for low-income children. The legislation we have passed sets a new standard for child care in America, making sure that Federal dollars are going to providers who are committed to providing child care that meets certain criteria, such as health and safety standards. Many of these changes reflect proposals I have put forth in previous Congresses to improve the Child Care and Development Block Grant, such as the Starting Early, Starting Right Act. I am encouraged that we were able to reach consensus on many of the provisions I have supported in the past, and that they are represented in this bill. I would have liked to go further. I believe we need to increase our investment in high-quality child care, and make it easier for child care providers to access training and education opportunities that will help them become better at caring for children and helping them learn. I would like to increase the incentives for States to invest in quality ratings and improvement systems, QRIS, which encourage child care providers to make continuous improvements in the quality of the care they provide and the facilities they use, often through financial incentives such as higher reimbursement rates when a certain quality level is reached. While the authorized appropriations levels in this bill represent a 16% increase over the next 6 years--we still have a long way to go. Nationwide, the number of children served with CCDBG funding from 2012 to 2013 fell by 47,500 children. In Pennsylvania, nearly 2,800 fewer children were served. The important provisions for health, safety, and quality in this bill are not without their cost, and Congress must fully fund them. No family, child care provider, or State should have to make a choice between serving more children or providing quality care. We owe our most vulnerable children no less. Even with the continued need for more funding, I still believe this legislation represents a significant improvement over current law and major progress for families. For the first time, we are requiring all States to develop robust health and safety standards, and to institute a consistent background check system for child care providers. We are requiring States to formally coordinate their early learning programs, to improve service coordination and delivery. We are allowing children who qualify for a subsidy to receive a year of care before their eligibility is re-determined, promoting stability and continuity for the entire family and encouraging the child to develop strong relationships with his or her teachers and peers in child care. We are increasing the investment in quality, from the 4 percent per year currently required in law to 9 percent within 5 years, and including a separate set-aside for infants and toddlers. Quality is a continuum, and a continual investment; it is not a one-time purchase, it is something we need to support and sustain. I thank Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Alexander, and Senator Mikulski and Senator Burr again for all of the work that they and their staff have done to get us to this point. When Congress works together children and family in this Nation all benefit. With the President's signature, parents can rest a little easier knowing that when they leave their child at child care, they will receive great care.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about this nomination. This is the nomination of Wendy Beetlestone to be U.S. district court judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. She has great qualifications. She is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, an honors graduate in her undergraduate institution. She has worked now for 19 years at the law firm of Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller, has 19 years of experience in litigation in a wide variety of matters. She worked in education law and has broad experience there. She worked as a journalist as well before she was a lawyer and, during her time working in Philadelphia as a lawyer, as a great advocate for people who don't have a voice and also someone who brings a wide experience to the Federal bench. I am honored to be working with Senator Toomey on this nomination, working together to get these nominations through, and I am so grateful for the work of the Judiciary Committee and especially Chairman Leahy moving these nominations through. I yield to my colleague from Pennsylvania.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, Theodore `Dutch' Van Kirk died on July 28, 2014, at the age of 93. A native of Northumberland, PA, he served his country with distinction during a difficult time for our Nation and the world. I ask that the following story from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette be printed in the Record.