Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to Dr. Jerry Rabinowitz. Jerry was 1 of the 11 people who was violently killed at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh's Squirrel Hill neighborhood. General George Patton once said, ``It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.'' Today we thank God for the life of Dr. Jerry Rabinowitz. When gunfire erupted, Dr. Rabinowitz was in a different location, but ran toward the gunfire, knowing there would be people who needed his care. That altruistic impulse cost Dr. Rabinowitz his life, but anyone who knew Dr. Rabinowitz has said he would have done nothing less. A family physician, Dr. Rabinowitz was guided by a moral compass that never faltered and an inner light that never went out. He embraced AIDS patients in the early years of the epidemic when other doctors shunned them. He made house calls to check in on patients; he believed in treating the whole person. He did not just care for individuals, but for entire families. Three and four generations of families became patients of Dr. Rabinowitz. He also served as president of Dor Hadash, one of the congregations that met at the Tree of Life synagogue. Dr. Rabinowitz's life ended tragically and far too soon, but the world is a better place for the years Dr. Rabinowitz was in it. His light lives on in all the patients he cared for and all the people he touched, and today we do indeed thank God for the life of Dr. Jerry Rabinowitz.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to Cecil Rosenthal and David Rosenthal. Cecil and David, who were brothers, were 2 of the 11 people who were violently killed at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh's Squirrel Hill neighborhood. John-Jacques Rousseau once said, ``The person who has lived the most is not the one with the most years but the one with the richest experiences.'' By that standard, Cecil and David Rosenthal lived more than almost anyone to grace this earth. They were inseparable from each other and from the Tree of Life Synagogue. Born with intellectual disabilities, they lived together in a community home run by ACHEIVA, an organization that assists people with disabilities, and were beloved throughout their community. Their strengths complemented each other, and they looked out for each other. Cecil, the more outgoing of the brothers, was known as the unofficial mayor of Squirrel Hill. He was a greeter at the Tree of Life Synagogue and active in the Best Buddies program that pairs college students with people with disabilities. David was more reserved, yet delighted everyone with his keen sense of humor. It was fitting that he became a custodian, as he had a passion for keeping things clean and a passion for law enforcement. Both have been made honorary Pittsburgh firefighters in honor of their contributions to the community. David Rosenthal and Cecil Rosenthal embraced life and, in turn, were embraced by it. They never let any limitations hinder them, which is how and why they touched countless lives. Robert F. Kennedy once talked about how, through our actions, we send out ripples of hope and that those ripples come together and make a larger collective difference. Every person who knew Cecil and David are a ripple of hope and through each of these ripples, their love of life, their contributions to their community, and their life of inclusion will live on and continue to positively impact the Squirrel Hill community, the city of Pittsburgh, and beyond.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to remember Joyce Fienberg. Joyce was 1 of the 11 people who was violently killed at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh's Squirrel Hill neighborhood. Joyce Fienberg spent 25 years at the University of Pittsburgh's Learning Research Center, where she focused on child development. She connected with the people she worked with and mentored graduate students. As her colleagues recalled, she was affectionately known as ``mom to all of us.'' Throughout her life, Joyce wanted to be where she was needed and where she could help. After her retirement, she became more involved in the Tree of Life Synagogue, and it became an outlet for her altruism. According to her son, she was a faithful attendee, a minyonaire, the nickname given to those members who attend the prayer quorum daily. Joyce Fienberg may no longer be with us, but her kindness and her spirit will be remembered by those she knew and whose lives she touched.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to remember Daniel Stein. Dan was 1 of the 11 people who was violently killed at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh's Squirrel Hill neighborhood. When Fred Rogers, better known as Mister Rogers, told children to ``look for the helpers,'' he could have been talking about Dan Stein. Whenever and wherever he was needed, for a task big or small, Dan was happy to lend a hand. A longtime member of the New Light Congregation and, for a time, its president, Dan was a fixture at Saturday services. Judaism played a significant role in his life, and he was copresident of the area's Hadassah chapter. We would all do well to remember Dan Stein's never failing desire to help his friends and neighbors and look for opportunities in our own lives to do more each day.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to remember Melvin Wax. Melvin was 1 of the 11 people who was violently killed at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh's Squirrel Hill neighborhood. Mel Wax approached his life and his days with a kind heart and a generous spirit. Mel was a regular at services and known for arriving early. He knew all the roles and would always step up when needed. The morning he died, he was leading services at New Light, one of the three congregations that met at the Tree of Life Synagogue. Mel Wax served in the Korean war, and though he talked about how hard it was, he would immediately add that he would do it again so someone else would not have to. Such was the selfless devotion of Mel Wax to his fellow man and his sense of duty. John McCain said, ``Every day, people serve their neighbors and our nation in many different ways . . . It is in this spirit of dedication to others and to our country that I believe service should be broadly and deeply encouraged.'' Mel Wax lived a life of service to his friends and neighbors. As we go about our days, let us strive to live up to his example.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to remember Irving Younger. Irving was 1 of the 11 people who was violently killed at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh's Squirrel Hill neighborhood. Irving Younger was a kind soul who was simply happy to help and do whatever was needed. He was always present to greet arrivals at the synagogue and would lend his prayer book if a new congregant at Tree of Life needed it. He had an innate ability to know what was needed and how to help. Irving Younger's life was rooted in his faith and his family. He would always arrive early for services and stay late, and his visits to his family in California brought him great joy. Ralph Emerson once said, ``You cannot do a kindness too soon because you never know when it will be too late.'' Irving Younger never failed to do a kindness and that devotion will be remembered by all he touched.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to Bernice and Sylvan Simon. Bernice and Sylvan were 2 of the 11 people who were violently killed at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh's Squirrel Hill neighborhood. Bernice and Sylvan Simon were devoted to each other and did everything together. Longtime members of the Tree of Life congregation, their life together began when they were married there in 1956 and it ended there over 60 years later, but those intervening years were years of joy, service, family, and love. That love and devotion served as an inspiration to their children and grandchildren, who hope that it will now serve as an example for all of us. Today let us remember the great love Bernice and Sylvan Simon shared and carry it forth in our own lives and for the rest of our days.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to speak to commemorate the horrific death of Matthew Shepard 20 years ago. On October 7, 1998, Matthew Shepard, then a 21-year-old student at the University of Wyoming, was kidnapped, brutally beaten, and left tied to a fence in a field outside of Laramie, WY. He passed away 5 days later in a hospital. Matthew was attacked because of his sexual orientation. His murder was an act of pure evil, borne of hate. Since his passing, Matthew's family has worked to share his story in the hope that no other family suffers a similar tragedy. His parents, Judy and Dennis Shepard, started the Matthew Shepard Foundation to honor the life and aspirations of their son. Judy has made countless personal appearances around the country and around the world, sharing Matthew's story, to shine a light on the importance of supporting the LGBT community and eradicating hate. She has relived the horror of his death so that others may not ever know such pain. I had the opportunity in 2005 to meet Judy Shepard here in Washington, and I was impressed and inspired by her strength. The foundation that the Shepard family has organized has worked to end hate in all forms around the country, starting dialogues at schools, corporations, and communities to promote human dignity for all individuals. They have also provided an online resource center for LGBT youth, helped to create a dialogue about hate crimes through support for The Laramie Project, and helped to advocate for legislation to end hate crimes. Judy Shepard's work has been successful, and I think that is an understatement. Matthew Shepard's story has resonated with people across the country and inspired change, including the 2009 passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which I was proud to cosponsor. This legislation added perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability as protected classes under existing Federal hate crimes law. Though we made a great deal of progress over the last 20 years, there is still so much work to do. In 2016, 6,121 hate crime incidents were reported, and of these incidents, 1,076 were based on sexual orientation bias, and 124 were based on gender-identity bias. In order to help to stop this violence, I am the author of the Disarm Hate Act. This legislation would prevent those convicted of a violent misdemeanor hate crime or those who have received a hate crime sentence enhancement from buying or possessing a gun. It is critical that we work not only to address hate crimes but to stop the culture of violence or prejudice that often begins as bullying and harassment in our schools. According to a Human Rights Campaign report, LGBT youth are more than twice as likely--twice as likely--as non-LGBT youth to be physically attacked at school. Similarly, a report by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network found that four out of five LGBT students reported experiencing harassment frequently in school based on their appearance or perceived sexual orientation. That is why I have consistently introduced the Safe Schools Improvement Act, which would prohibit in K-12 schools bullying and harassment based on sexual orientation or gender identity. I am also a proud cosponsor of the Equality Act, a landmark civil rights bill that would amend existing civil rights laws to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in education, employment, housing, credit, and Federal jury service. Matthew Shepard's life and death has inspired great change across our Nation over the last 20 years. His life continues to inspire me and so many others, so many Members of Congress, and, indeed, so many Americans to continue the fight against hate and violence in all its forms. We just read today, just hours ago, a story in the Washington Post which told us that Matthew Shepard's remains will be interred in the next couple of weeks inside the crypt at the National Cathedral here in Washington. May he rest in peace. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, we come together today to talk about a critical nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court at a time when the Court will be considering a range of issues that are critically important to the American people. Right now, one of the issues a lot of Americans are most concerned about is the issue of healthcare. There are so many aspects to that issue we can examine today. I will get to larger overriding concerns I have with the nomination in a moment. For now, what I will do is walk through some concerns I have when it comes to healthcare itself and, in particular, Americans with disabilities because I think, in this part of the debate and in this part of Judge Kavanaugh's record and the potential impact his decisions as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court will have on healthcare itself and people with disabilities--this whole part of his record and what might happen has not been examined enough in this debate. I will start with healthcare. If Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed today, he could be the deciding vote in eliminating key healthcare protections for people with preexisting conditions--an action that would have serious repercussions on the healthcare of millions of Americans. This administration and congressional Republicans have been trying for the better part of the last 2 years to rip away healthcare coverage from the people who need it the most across America. Republicans in both branches of government--the executive branch and the legislative branch--have attempted to decimate Medicaid. Although they have been unable so far to fully repeal the Affordable Care Act in Congress, the Republicans have turned to the courts to sabotage the healthcare system and the Affordable Care Act. By the way, while we are mentioning the Medicaid Program, let's remind the American people what that program is. The Medicaid Program is not a ``them'' program, it is an ``us'' program. It is about us--who we are as Americans, whether we are going to take care of the family of America. I think my home State is representative of the impact Medicaid has on people across the country. Forty percent of the children in Pennsylvania get their healthcare through the Medicaid Program; 50 percent of the people with disabilities in Pennsylvania rely upon Medicaid; and 60 percent of seniors trying to get into a nursing home for long-term care in the twilight of their lives rely upon the Medicaid Program. Forty percent of the kids, 50 percent of people with disabilities, and 60 percent of seniors rely upon this program--some 70 million Americans. The decisions by this Congress, or this body, and the entire legislative branch are critically important on Medicaid and healthcare; obviously, the decisions of the executive branch. Now we have to focus as well on the judicial branch, especially with the nomination that could tip the balance in 5-to-4 decisions. Judge Kavanaugh has twice disagreed with rulings upholding the Affordable Care Act. It is no coincidence he has been nominated by this President, by this administration. President Trump apparently believes he can count on Justice Kavanaugh, were he to be confirmed, to rule against the Affordable Care Act when he is on the Supreme Court, if he were to be confirmed today. You don't have to take my word for this. A former law clerk of Judge Kavanaugh's said it best when she spoke up about Kavanaugh's view of the Affordable Care Act: ``No other contender on President Trump's list is on record so vigorously opposing the law''--the law meaning the Affordable Care Act that brought healthcare to 20 million Americans, about more than half of them because we expanded Medicaid. Right now, courts are considering whether people with preexisting conditions should be protected from being charged more, from being denied coverage, or being dropped from their insurance simply because of their health status. Who would ever believe that after putting into law, enacting into law, those protections for 130 million Americans, we would still be debating it and that an entire political party would be in a court of law arguing those protections are unconstitutional? It is an insult to who we are as Americans. In Texas v. United States, the administration last sided with 20 Republican State attorneys general and is refusing to defend the Affordable Care Act's protections for people with preexisting conditions. What is at stake in this legal battle that could obviously end up, down the road, in the Supreme Court? It is 130 million Americans with preexisting conditions. That means people with diabetes or cancer or anything else that is a preexisting condition could have their lives grossly adversely impacted. The Supreme Court might be the last line of defense to maintaining those protections for people with preexisting conditions. A Justice Kavanaugh could be the deciding vote to rip away protections which are in law now, right now, and they could be taken away. If Republicans were to win this fight, coverage for millions of Americans who have these protections would be adversely impacted. That is probably an understatement. We also have to be concerned about the fundamentals of our health insurance system--the fundamental stability of our healthcare system, which could be undermined or worse. Such a decision by the Supreme Court would have real-life consequences. In Pennsylvania alone, 5.3 million people, including 643,000 children, have a preexisting condition. I will tell you the story of one of those children. Jackson Corbin is 13 years old and lives in Hanover, PA. He lives with his mother Anna, his father Michael, and his brother Henry. Jackson, Henry, and their mom all have Noonan syndrome--a congenital disability that often involves heart attacks, bleeding problems, possible developmental delays, short stature, and malformation of the rib cage--all of that in the life of one child. Jackson's most troubling concern is a form of hemophilia called Von Willebrand disease. Because of this disease, he has to be very careful not to cut himself or to do things that might cause internal bleeding. This means Jackson cannot play sports. He cannot roller skate or even jump on a trampoline. The cost of his healthcare--including medications and treatments and specialists--is more than what his parents would make in a year. Without health insurance coverage they are able to purchase through the Affordable Care Act--including protections for preexisting conditions--the Corbin family would either go bankrupt or Jackson, his mother, and his brother would have to go without treatment, risking their lives. Last month Jackson testified in front of the Judiciary Committee and spoke about what Judge Kavanaugh's nomination meant for him, Jackson Corbin. My Noonan Syndrome is part of who I am. It has been a part of me since the day I was born, and will be a part of me for the rest of my life. If you destroy protections for preexisting conditions, you will leave me and all the kids and adults like me without care or without the ability to afford our care--all because of who we are. Let me repeat those last few words of Jackson Corbin, 13 years old: ``without care or without the ability to afford our care.'' That is what we are talking about here. Judge Kavanaugh could very well be the deciding vote in determining the future of this child and the future of members of his family. All of us, everybody in this building today, are just one illness away--each of us is just one injury away--from having our own preexisting condition, if we don't have one already. Maybe Senators and judges and Justices don't have to worry about protections for preexisting conditions. Maybe they can all buy that protection one way or another, but 130 million Americans have to worry and have to worry about this consequential nomination on an issue of such grave importance as healthcare itself and maybe, most especially, protections for people with preexisting conditions. How about disabilities? Judge Kavanaugh's record on the rights of individuals with disabilities is troubling as well. I will give you one example. Liz Weintraub, like Jackson, testified in front of the Judiciary Committee in opposition to Judge Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court. I know Liz Weintraub well. She is 51 years old. She is from Rockville, MD. She has cerebral palsy and an intellectual disability. She had two loving parents and three loving sisters, and for 4 months this year, she was on my staff as a legislative fellow. So I am not objective when it comes to Liz Weintraub, but here is what she told us. The work she did, of course, on our staff was significant. She helped to organize hearings and worked on disability issues to educate our office and me, as well as other Senate offices about the importance of hiring people with disabilities. But Liz experienced low expectations in her life. She was told by educators she could never attend college. She spent 9 years in a private institution. She was told she had to work in a sheltered workshop. Despite these barriers, Liz persevered and achieved her dream of being a disability policy advocate. Her knowledge, experience, and wisdom made my office a better place on these issues and a better place to work in. It strengthened our office's ability to work on disability policy. Let's get to the judge's record on these issues. Judge Kavanaugh, on the DC Circuit, shows a pattern of siding against individuals with disabilities. He has sided with employers over employees who have a disability, making it more difficult for employees to prove discrimination in court and have their rights protected under the law. In a case called Doe v. District of Columbia, he called into question the very autonomy and right to self-determination of people with disabilities. The case involved three women who had intellectual disabilities and lived in facilities run by the District of Columbia. The District allowed medical professionals to decide when elective surgeries would be performed on these women without even consulting with them and without even trying to determine the wishes of these three women. The trial court sided with the women in this case and said the District of Columbia had to attempt to determine what these women wanted before making medical decisions on their behalf. Judge Kavanaugh overturned the lower court decision. He questioned the basic liberty of individuals with disabilities. He allowed the government to continue making medical decisions on behalf of these three women in the District of Columbia without ever attempting to determine what they wanted. This decision is offensive to the American people, but it is offensive, I think, to people with disabilities even more so and to people who have fought for decades to secure the rights of people with disabilities. The decision robbed these women of their autonomy, and it robbed them of their humanity. Liz Weintraub said in her testimony: I worry that if a Justice on the Supreme Court does not believe that we, as people with intellectual disabilities, CAN MAKE decisions for ourselves, then we will have the right to make those decisions taken away from us. . . . That is why I am opposing Judge Kavanaugh. These are the words of Liz Weintraub, speaking for many Americans with disabilities. I want to thank Liz for her testimony and for coming forward to speak on behalf of those Americans. These decisions about these rights for people with disabilities don't just impact the individuals in the particular lawsuit. They also set a precedent for future cases and send a message about the values of our country about whose rights we consider worthy of protection. If our courts don't protect the rights and dignity of people with disabilities, then, what are our courts there for? We have to ask that question. I want to conclude with just a couple of more comments. There has been a lot of debate and a lot of commentary and a lot of vigorous disagreement about the back and forth that occurred just last week, but I think I am like many Americans who say I believe Dr. Ford's testimony. I thought she was both credible and persuasive, and I wrote the following earlier this week in an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer dated October 2, in describing part of her testimony, the ``details of a sexual assault she experienced as a 15-year-old''--that made an impression on Americans, of course. Then, I went on to say: ``the terror she felt in that moment, the horror of the physical assault, and the psychological trauma of believing she might die.'' I believe that testimony, and that alone is troubling enough when it comes to making a determination on this nomination. I was further concerned when I listened to the testimony of Judge Kavanaugh, concerned about his lack of judicial temperament--I think that is an understatement in that moment--and also whether or not he could be an impartial Justice based upon what he said in response to the allegations, and especially what he was saying about Democrats in the Senate. So I will vote no for several reasons, many of them outlined with regard to healthcare and disability policy. I will vote no on this nomination, and I urge my colleagues to vote no as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I come to floor, once again, to raise concerns about the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. I think these concerns permeate every aspect of the nomination process and the nominee himself. When Judge Kavanaugh's name came forward because of the nomination by President Trump, he came from a list of 25 names. These names were assembled by the White House in consultation with--the record indicates--just two groups: the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society. Both are far-right organizations that have a view of public policy that on most issues I don't agree with, but I think that is true of most Pennsylvanians. I can't speak for the whole country, but I would be willing to guess many people around the country are not in agreement. The Heritage Foundation, for example, has called labor unions cartels. That is one view they seem to have about labor unions. I come from a State where we have a proud labor history, where people literally bled and died for the right to organize, whether it was the Homestead strike in Southwestern Pennsylvania back at the turn of the previous century or whether it was the Lattimer massacre in Northeastern Pennsylvania or whether it was the strike by anthracite miners in the early 1900s in my home area, the region where I live in Northeastern Pennsylvania. These fights for the right to organize, the right to bargain collectively for wages and benefits were not just hard-won, but they represented the values of the people of Pennsylvania. When I consider that history and consider the attacks that organized labor is currently undergoing--the Janus case by this Supreme Court is one example and I am afraid will be one in a series of cases that will be decided against the interests of working men and women--I am especially concerned about any nomination to the Supreme Court on those and other issues but, maybe, especially the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh. I think even someone who would disagree with me on my views of organized labor or my views on his record would agree that it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, that we would have an American middle class without organized labor, without all of that work, all of the sacrifice that was undertaken to achieve the right to organize. That right is threatened now, and I think this nomination is one of the threats to that basic right. It should come as no surprise that this nominee has sprung from that same process that I mentioned earlier. I believe this list that has now been put on the table--in other words, no one could be nominated to the Supreme Court by this administration unless you are on that list of 25 that was chosen by those two groups, the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society. If you are a conservative, if you are seen as a conservative judge, a Federal court judge either in the district court or appellate court or maybe a State supreme court justice where we have had some members of the U.S. Supreme Court have their start--if you are not on that list of 25, if you are one of the hundreds of judges appointed by Republican Presidents, you need not apply because you don't have any chance of getting on the Supreme Court if you are not on that favored list of 25. I think we can reach--and I think the administration could and should reach--a lot further than just a list of 25 that represent a very narrow view of justice, a narrow view of jurisprudence, and certainly a troubling view of the rights of working men and women, just by way of example. On the District of Columbia Circuit, Judge Kavanaugh has frequently dissented from his colleagues in cases involving workers' rights, discrimination, and retaliation, at times going out of his way to argue that the interests of corporations should override the interests of individual workers. I serve on the Special Committee on Aging, where I happen to be serving as a ranking member in this Congress, along with Chairman Susan Collins, and I am especially astounded at some of Judge Kavanaugh's opinions relating to both older Americans and people with disabilities. Just by way of example, he dissented in two cases that upheld the Affordable Care Act, which is essential to ensuring healthcare for over 130 million Americans with preexisting conditions. Right now, the courts are considering whether people with preexisting conditions should continue to be protected from being charged more, being denied coverage, or being dropped from their insurance simply because of their insurance status. The Supreme Court might be the last line of defense in maintaining these protections for people with preexisting conditions, and Judge Kavanaugh could be that deciding vote. In two cases, Judge Kavanaugh disagreed with rulings upholding-- upholding--the Affordable Care Act. A former law clerk for Judge Kavanaugh said it best when she spoke about his views of the Affordable Care Act. She said: ``No other contender on President Trump's list is on record so vigorously criticizing the law''--``the law'' meaning the Affordable Care Act. Also, in notable cases, Judge Kavanaugh sided with employers over employees with disabilities, making it more difficult for employees to prove discrimination in court and have their rights protected under law. In one dissent, he took a narrow view of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, also known as the ADEA, which has protected the rights of older workers for decades, and Judge Kavanaugh wrote that he did not believe it applied to certain Federal employees. Perhaps most egregiously, in Doe v. DC, Judge Kavanaugh determined that three women with intellectual disabilities could be forced to undergo elective surgery, allowing the government to make medical decisions on their behalf without ever attempting to determine their wishes. I could go on to a whole other line of cases--or maybe not lines of cases but commentaries he has made on Executive power, but we don't have time today. That issue is of great concern because of what we are confronted with, where we have an investigation underway by Robert Mueller that involves the executive branch. Of course, a deciding vote on the Supreme Court on any issue is significant, but maybe because of the current posture--or the current circumstances we are in--Judge Kavanaugh's views on Executive power are a whole series of other concerns we have. These disturbing views are apparent not just from his decisions and his writings but of course from the public record. What other positions did Judge Kavanaugh take before he was on the bench? What views are set forth, for example, in the record from the time he spent as White House Staff Secretary and in the White House Counsel's Office? We have to ask that question. We don't have his full record from his tenure working in the administration of President George W. Bush. Why don't we have access to those records? We have to ask that question. Why don't we have access to that basic information? We don't have these records because Republicans in the Senate have been rushing to jam this nomination through before the midterm elections. They have broken norms and deprived the Senate of critical background documents to get Judge Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court bench before November. Instead of following precedent and waiting for the nonpartisan National Archives to review and release Judge Kavanaugh's full record, they have rushed to hold hearings and a committee vote before we even have the information all Senators are entitled to before voting on a lifetime appointment. Let me move to what happened last week. Last Thursday, the Nation watched as Dr. Christine Blasey Ford shared with the Senate Judiciary Committee the horrible details of a sexual assault she experienced as a 15-year-old: the terror she felt in that moment, the horror of the physical assault, and the psychological trauma of believing she might, in fact, die. We heard her describe how two teenage boys, under the influence of alcohol, pushed her into a bedroom, locked the door, turned up the music, and how one of the boys pinned her to the bed and covered her mouth to muffle her screams; how she escaped and heard them drunkenly ``pinballing'' down the staircase. We also heard how her clearest memory from that assault was the boys' laughter while it was underway. Dr. Ford said she was ``terrified'' as she appeared before the Judiciary Committee to recount these traumatic events, but she decided to do so because she believed it was her ``civic duty'' to tell the public what she had experienced. She was open with the committee and consistent in her account and was ``100 percent'' certain that it was Brett Kavanaugh who had assaulted her. When I watched her testimony from beginning to end, the conclusion I reached was that she was both credible and persuasive. I believed her, and I think a lot of Americans did as well; maybe more than half of Americans believed her, but I know I did. I also believe Judge Kavanaugh's response that same day, on Thursday, to these credible allegations has cast even greater doubt on his credibility. It also cast doubt on his temperament and his ability to serve as an impartial jurist. I think anyone, even a supporter of Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, could have been troubled by his demeanor, and I will use the word ``temperament'' again, when he came before the committee. After Dr. Ford presented her moving testimony, Judge Kavanaugh responded with explosive anger and partisan attacks on virtually all Democrats. I was surprised he did that. No one would begrudge him the opportunity and the necessity, if he felt it were necessary, to deny these allegations aggressively. No one would deny him of that, but to question the motives of virtually every Democrat--at least every Democrat on the committee--and to assert some kind of broad, partisan conspiracy, I think was over the top and is not consistent with the demeanor anyone would expect from any judge at any level but especially someone who might be the fifth vote on the most powerful Court in the country and arguably the most powerful Court in the world. I think most people, for or against Judge Kavanaugh, would conclude that his demeanor that day was not demeanor that was consistent with that high position he was seeking. Another troubling aspect of his testimony that day--and I was rather surprised by this--is when he was asked about an FBI investigation, whether he would support additional investigative work by the FBI, simply to update the background check or to complete the background check, instead of requesting a full and open FBI investigation that would show he had nothing to hide, he dodged questions and misrepresented the testimony of key witnesses. There is an old inscription on a building where I used to work in Harrisburg, our State capital, the Finance Building, which reads very simply: ``Open to every inspection, secure from every suspicion.'' In this case, if Judge Kavanaugh were open to that inspection or, in this case, that investigation or a continuing investigation or background check, I think a lot of people would have accorded him more credibility or more confidence in what he was saying--if he said, please, complete the background check and have the FBI take a look at all of these questions--but he kept saying it was not his call. That may be technically true, but I was hoping he would support the investigation. If Judge Kavanaugh has done nothing wrong, as he and the White House and Senate Republicans claim, he should have welcomed a full, open, and independent investigation into these claims against him or any other matter that is relevant. I am glad the FBI is finally conducting an investigation, although I am concerned about reports that the White House may be limiting the investigation and directing its scope. The FBI must be allowed to question all relevant individuals and follow the facts where they lead. The FBI is the best in the world, and I have great confidence they will do good work. They shouldn't be constrained in this very limited period of time, this 1 week they are investigating. I hope--and I don't know the answer to this, but I hope what the President said yesterday; that he and his administration are not constraining the FBI, and I am paraphrasing, not using exact words--that is the policy the administration transmitted directly to the FBI. I hope there is no variance or difference between what the President said and what his administration is indicating directly to the FBI. I don't know, but I hope there is a consistency there. I wish to wrap up because I know we have to do that. The Supreme Court decides, as so many Americans understand, cases of monumental importance to our Nation. These cases will impact the day-to-day lives of Americans for decades, if not generations, and many questions will be decided by the Supreme Court. Let me just list a few: the American people's ability to access affordable healthcare, for example; their opportunity to work in an environment free from discrimination; their ability to access the justice system and have their day in court, often against powerful corporate interests; and, as I said at the outset, the basic rights of working men and women, including the right to organize and the right to bargain collectively. I hope that when Members of the Senate are making a determination about this nomination, they will take those interests and those concerns into their deliberations. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

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

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise today to urge the Senate to pass the Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act. This is a bill that not many Americans have heard about yet, but it is a critically important bill for the Senate to pass and very important for the country. This bill will preserve the Justice Department's independent investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 Presidential election. Since this weekend, there have been reports that the President may fire Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein from his position at the Department of Justice. This would be a gross abuse of power--a line that we cannot allow to be crossed without consequence. Mr. Rosenstein has a long career in public service and law enforcement. He initially joined the Department of Justice nearly 30 years ago through the Attorney General's Honors Program and rose through the ranks, serving as a Trial Attorney, as a Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division, and as a U.S. Attorney in Maryland for over a decade--a critically important job in our justice system. As Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Rosenstein has overseen the Russia investigation led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, which has secured indictments or guilty pleas from 32 people and 3 companies, including Russian individuals and companies, as well as former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, deputy campaign manager Rick Gates, and other campaign advisers, including George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn. Earlier this month, Mr. Manafort pleaded guilty to ``conspiracy against the United States.'' Mr. Rosenstein has played an integral role in ensuring that the Mueller investigation can continue without interference. Unfortunately, this work and Mr. Rosenstein's long and distinguished service at the Department of Justice could come to an end if he is fired by the President. From day one, President Trump has systematically worked to obstruct Special Counsel Mueller's investigation into Russia's attack on our Nation. He has attempted to fire, to demand loyalty of, and to interfere with any official with oversight of this matter. By way of example, this is a President who fired the Director of the FBI and later admitted in a television interview that he had done so with the Russia investigation in mind. This is a President who has repeatedly attacked the very Attorney General he nominated, suggesting that the Department of Justice should do his political bidding. This is a President who has impugned the impartiality and the motives of judges who have ruled against his policies. This is a President who has continued to call the Mueller investigation a ``witch-hunt'' despite the fact that it has already produced dozens of indictments and guilty pleas. In short, this is a President who believes the Department of Justice owes a duty of loyalty to him and him alone. Our Justice Department officials have a duty to serve the American people and only the American people. They swear to uphold the Constitution, not to genuflect to this President or any President. Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein has upheld his duty to the country and our Constitution. If the President fires him, it will be yet another blatant attempt to derail the Mueller investigation, and it could very well be successful. Rod Rosenstein supervises the Russia investigation, overseeing the work of Special Counsel Mueller and his team. He receives status reports, establishes the investigation's budget, and, according to special counsel regulations, has the power to ``determine whether the investigation should continue.'' He therefore plays an integral role in ensuring that the independent investigation can continue to seek answers on Russia's interference in the 2016 election. If Mr. Rosenstein were fired, it could compromise the Mueller investigation in ways the public can see and in ways we may never know through warrants that are never approved or resources that are diverted to other projects. This would be a decision by the President that would put us into unchartered waters. It is therefore more important than ever that Congress step up and exercise the oversight that the American people expect from us and I would say especially here in the Senate. Since President Trump entered office, the Republican majority has not discharged its duty to act as an independent check on the executive branch and on the President himself. The majority would not be able to abdicate its responsibility any longer if Rosenstein were to be fired. Congress has a solemn obligation to act immediately--immediately--to protect Special Counsel Mueller's investigation and prevent any more interference from this administration. Senators in both parties have a duty to the American people to step up as a coequal branch of government and ensure that the special counsel's independent investigation remains just that--independent. For public officials and institutions with nothing to hide, an investigation which is independent is not a ``witch-hunt''; it is an opportunity for vindication, a chance to prove that our institutions and the individuals who serve them are truly worthy of the public's trust. At a time when the American people's confidence in our institution is low--very low--and when suspicion of wrongdoing is high, it is all the more important that the 2016 election activities of Russia, as well as the Trump campaign, be open for review. As the voice of the American people, we in the Senate must ensure that the investigation both continues and remains, in fact, independent. The legislation to protect the Mueller investigation, the Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act, is ready for a vote by the full Senate at any time if the majority leader would permit us to do that. It is a bipartisan bill that has been approved by a bipartisan majority of the Judiciary Committee. There is no excuse not to pass this legislation immediately. Day by day, each time the President attacks Robert Mueller or Rod Rosenstein or the rule of law, we are presented with more evidence of why this legislation is needed. That is why I have again come to the floor to urge Leader McConnell to bring up this bill for a vote. It is far past time to put country over party. We must not forget that the special counsel is investigating an attack on our democracy by a foreign adversary. As a matter of national security, the American people deserve answers about what happened during the 2016 election. We cannot allow anyone, including the President, to interfere with the investigation and prevent the American people from getting those answers to very important questions.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, September 24 to 28, 2018, marks Malnutrition Awareness Week. Malnutrition Awareness Week is a multi- organizational, multipronged campaign created by the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition to educate healthcare professionals to identify and treat for malnutrition earlier, educate consumers and patients to discuss their nutrition status with healthcare professionals, and increase awareness of nutrition's role in patient recovery. Last summer, the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging held a hearing to discuss the importance of proper nutrition and the impact of malnutrition on America's seniors. We learned that, in 2014, more than 13 percent of seniors in Pennsylvania reported food insecurity. Experts shared that poverty, food insecurity, and changes with age significantly increase the risk of malnutrition. Unfortunately, we do not know the full extent to which malnutrition plagues seniors across the country. It is for this reason that last fall I called on the U.S. Government Accountability Office to examine what is known about the caloric and nutrient needs of older adults as well as the extent to which federally funded nutrition programs that serve older adults are meeting their nutrition needs. No seniors should have to choose between putting food on the table and taking their medications. That is why, as ranking member of the Aging Committee, I authored a bill, the Nourishing Our Golden Years Act, to improve seniors' access to the senior food box program, my bill assures that seniors are not kicked off the program simply because of red tape and difficult deadlines. We cannot solve malnutrition without better understanding the issue. Older adults, caregivers and healthcare professionals require guidance on the identification of and interventions for seniors facing this crisis. I am pleased to raise awareness about malnutrition among seniors as part of Malnutrition Awareness Week.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise before you today to express the importance of freedom of the press both around the world and here at home. Journalists take risks--often great risks--to tell the stories of war, genocide, hunger, poverty, and corruption around the world while facing unprecedented rates of intimidation and violence. Freedom of expression is the bedrock of our democracy, but we must not take it for granted. It is how we hold ourselves to the standards set by the Founders and hold ourselves accountable and how we protect our institutions from falling into traps set by those who seek to abuse power. Earlier this year, I introduced S. Res. 501, a resolution recognizing threats to freedom of the press and freedom of expression. This resolution was introduced with Senators Rubio and Wyden, and I thank my colleagues for their leadership on this important issue. This resolution highlights the importance of the freedom of the press, condemns attacks against journalists, and reaffirms press freedom as a priority for the U.S. Government. This resolution is in honor of the 46 journalists who were killed in 2017 for their reporting, for the 262 journalists who were imprisoned around the world last year, and, as part of that 262, the 21 journalists who were jailed just in 2017 for ``false news,'' which more than doubled the 2016 record. These journalists are mothers and fathers and sons and daughters who put their lives and, indeed, their freedom on the line to shed a light on some of the world's toughest stories. I would like to tell the story of one of the journalists who lost his life last year, Chris Allen, while he bravely reported from a conflict area. I acknowledge Chris's parents, Joyce Krajian and John Allen, who are here with us today. Chris grew up in Narberth, PA, and graduated from the University of Pennsylvania. Chris's parents say he was an explorer from an early age and had a keen interest in history. He went on to pursue his master's degree at Oxford. He was encouraged to go to places where history was being made. Chris embraced this calling and became a freelance journalist--first in eastern Ukraine, where he embedded with pro- Ukranian forces and reported for outlets like the Independent and the Guardian, in order to help give his audience a glimpse of the conflict up close. His mother Joyce and his father John have shared this memory of Chris: This desire to bring to light untold stories from uncovered regions of the world and the plights of their peoples--that's what motivated Chris. He wanted to know the thoughts and feelings of those encountering conflict firsthand. So said his parents. After 3 years in Ukraine, Chris decided to embed with the South Sudan opposition forces near the Ugandan border. On August 26, 2017, we understand that Chris walked overnight with these fighters and two other journalists to the town of Kaya. Chris was killed shortly after dawn while he photographed a gun battle between opposition and government forces. Chris was just 26 years old. In the early years of his professional life, Chris had already committed himself to the vital job of covering dangerous places and exposing stories of vulnerable people whose countries were embroiled in war. In the year that has passed since his death, despite commitments from the South Sudanese Government to investigate, Joyce and John have no official information about how he was killed, and no one has been held accountable for the loss of their son. They have seen South Sudanese Government officials smear Chris's reputation and threaten other foreign journalists with the same fate. This is unthinkable for any parent to have to endure. Chris Allen's parents have more questions than they have answers. Chris and others like him have lost their lives in the pursuit of truth, with no accountability or justice. Other journalists sit in prison today for daring to speak truth to power. We have a responsibility to advance these core American values--the values of freedom of expression and freedom of the press. These values continue to serve as an example to the world. As I mentioned earlier, our bipartisan resolution reaffirms press freedom as a priority for the United States. What does this mean exactly? First, advocating for media freedom should be a feature of the U.S. Government's interactions with other governments where the media is censored, silenced, or threatened. I have had tough conversations over the years, as I know many of my colleagues have had, with foreign government officials about human rights and the rule of law. I know it can be difficult to advance these values while always cooperating on other issues like security or other political issues, but we must press these issues. Whether it is advocating for the release of two Reuters journalists who were detained under antiquated laws in Myanmar, pressing for an investigation into Chris Allen's death, or pushing for reforms to allow media workers to operate more freely, the U.S. Government must be consistent and persistent. Perhaps more importantly, we must model the respect for free journalism and empower journalists here at home. Investigative journalism helps to hold accountable government officials, elected representatives, business leaders, and others. It exposes fraud and waste and corruption, which corrode our society. It helps us to connect with the men and the women in uniform who serve our Nation overseas and to understand the conflicts in which they fight. It shows us the atrocities of terrorist groups like ISIS and the abuses of dictatorial regimes like that of Bashar al-Assad's. Journalists amplify the voices of the most vulnerable among us and provide for us a window into the homes and into the hearts of people a world away. Instead of respecting these professionals, President Trump has called them the ``enemy of the people.'' When we hear powerful voices denigrate tough reporting as ``fake news'' or bar reporters from doing their jobs by blocking access, we all must condemn it. Reporters, writers, photographers, and media workers in the United States have not been intimidated and will continue to carry the torch of core American values like freedom of the press. On both sides of the aisle, we have a responsibility to rebuke any anti-press narratives by any public officials. This narrative is not only antithetical to the values our Founders laid out in the Bill of Rights, but it is dangerous. I urge my colleagues to support S. Res. 501 this week and to speak up for media freedoms every day. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise, as my colleague from Alaska just did so eloquently, to pay tribute to our colleague and our friend, Senator John McCain. I guess I have to start with a question: Where do I begin? Where does anyone begin after all we have heard these last number of days and will continue to hear in the days ahead when we pay tribute, in a more formal way in the next few days, here in Washington, in Arizona, and around the world? John McCain lived to serve his country. His life could be best described in many words, but three come to mind: courage, commitment, and character. There is a line attributed to Abraham Lincoln in which he said: In the end, it is not the years in one's life that count; it is the life in those years. It is a loose translation, not exact. Yet, when you consider the life in those years in the context of John McCain, what a life it was. He was a remarkable human being who was able to rise above the horror of being a captive and of being tortured in order to achieve so much in his life after that in the Navy, as an elected official, as a Presidential candidate, and, of course, most especially, as a leader. John McCain demonstrated a kind of courage that most people cannot even begin to imagine--5\1/2\ years spent in an enemy prison camp in North Vietnam. I was thinking, as it was recounted this week, that 5\1/ 2\ years is just a little less than a Senate term that he spent as a captive. Given the opportunity to cut the line and be released ahead of his fellow prisoners, likely because of his father's rank as an admiral, John McCain said, no, he would wait his turn and endure the beatings and suffering that he had to endure. A few years ago, a number of us retreated to the rare privilege of listening to John McCain talk about that experience. We had a lunch-- both sides of the aisle--in the caucus room in the Russell Building, and John McCain talked about some of his experiences as a prisoner of war. I will never forget those stories, and I will never forget how he walked through those experiences with such humility. There is no recitation of facts that would lead you to the conclusion that he was heroic--though, he was. There was no self-aggrandizement, no effort to tell you how tough he was or how strong he was. He just told stories about what it was like--the daily suffering and the pain his captors would inflict on him day after day after day. This experience, obviously and certainly, impacted his approach to foreign policy and his approach to military policy for the rest of his life. It especially impacted his work as a public official in the House of Representatives and in the U.S. Senate. In his 2008 acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, John McCain said: I fell in love with my country when I was a prisoner in someone else's. I loved it not just for the many comforts of life here. I loved it for its decency, for its faith in the wisdom, justice, and goodness of its people. It is a rare soul of great courage who comes away from such a painful, searing experience with that outlook and with a deep desire to continue to serve. John McCain's life, obviously, was a life of action and a life of commitment. He was committed to this country that he served for 60 years in the Navy, in the House of Representatives, and in the Senate-- the Senate, of course, for more than 30 after having been elected in 1986. He was, of course, committed to bringing hope to the oppressed, to the persecuted around the world, and to the people here at home. When I think of John, I am reminded of some of the words from ``America the Beautiful.'' The one line that is inspirational is that line that we have often heard: ``O beautiful for patriot dream That sees beyond the years.'' John McCain's life was a testament to that dream, not a ``dream'' in a theoretical sense but in the belief that, every day, your work has to be geared toward the future. The dream of a patriot is not something abstract. The dream of a patriot has to be the commitment of working on behalf of those who will come after you. That is why the line talks about seeing beyond the years, always working, as John McCain did, for the future--for more freedom, for more opportunity, for less oppression, for less suffering for people here at home and around the world. He had that dream that animated his life's work. John McCain, of course, would also have been the first person to have reminded us that he had been far from perfect. I am not sure I have ever heard of a public official recounting or reciting instances in which he was not perfect or when he didn't do the right thing. Very few public officials are willing to admit that. Of course, John was not the usual public official. Even when he cataloged mistakes or things that he believed he did wrong, everyone who knew him--everyone who knew anything about his life or his work or his service--would also conclude at the same time that, without question, John McCain had integrity, that John McCain had character, and that character must continue to matter in the life of a public official. If it doesn't matter, then we are not going to have much of a country. John McCain understood that. It is not good enough to be smart and committed to your positions on public policy. It is not good enough just to be there for votes and for debates. That is, obviously, critical, but character still matters, and John McCain was living proof of that. I remember one occasion on which he and I had an acrimonious exchange in a Senate elevator, for just a couple seconds when the elevator went from the basement to the second floor. John was very heated, and I was taken by surprise as to how heated he was. Yet, as we have heard so many times over the past several days, John McCain never let a public policy disagreement impact personal relationships with his colleagues. A couple of hours later, we were back on the Senate floor. I wanted to continue the argument, and I started to approach him on the floor to continue the argument. I guess I wanted to get the last word, which might have been a mistake with John McCain. Yet, as I got close to him, John McCain lifted up his arms, reached out to me, and embraced me. He said, ``I'm sorry.'' He apologized. It is not common for elected officials in any government or at any level of government to apologize on a regular basis, but John McCain was uncommon when it came to being a unique public official. John worked with so many of us on many issues. I didn't have the chance to work with him on a long list of issues, but I do remember one that had a particular impact on me. That was his work as a vocal advocate for the people of Syria, who were still suffering under the oppressive, violent regime of Bashar al-Assad. I worked with John, as many did here, to pursue a policy as to how the United States could best support the aspirations of the Syrian people for new political leadership, for stability, security, and, of course, for a prosperous future. John McCain and I didn't agree on all national security issues, but I will always remember his courage of conviction when it came to standing with the oppressed and vulnerable people across the world against tyrannical dictators or despots. On this issue, we were on the same page and tried to get the policy right. Whether it was with international affairs or domestic policies, John worked to find common ground with his colleagues, though, to do that, we were trying to create, of course, a stronger country and a better world, and I am grateful to have been included among those who can say they worked with John McCain to try to enact good policy. Let me conclude with these words. In one of his final interviews, when asked how he would like to be remembered, John McCain's simple response was: ``He served his country honorably.'' The final word was added with some reservation as if he still wondered if it were deserved. Let's be clear. John McCain did serve his country honorably, and this country is much better for his service. We will miss him in this Chamber, but we should all strive to live up to his example of service and bipartisan work in the Senate and bipartisan work for our Nation. The words ring true for John McCain more than almost anyone else I can think of: ``O beautiful for patriot dream That sees beyond the years.'' John McCain was always trying to be that patriot who thought about the future, who tried to see beyond the years to make life better for those who would come after him. We were privileged to have served in the U.S. Senate with John McCain. On behalf of my family and, I am sure, not just of the family of Pennsylvania but of those well beyond our State, we offer condolences to John's wife Cindy and to their family, and his many friends. May he rest in peace. God bless John McCain. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to spend a couple of minutes talking about the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. We know that the debate has been engaged now for a number of weeks and that the American people are part of that debate. I have already expressed my views about the process that led to his nomination. I have very strong views about it. I think it was a corrupt bargain between at least two--if not the only two--far-right organizations and the administration to choose from a list of only 25 individuals to serve on the Supreme Court. In other words, if you are not on the list of 25 chosen by those groups or at least certainly ratified by those groups, you cannot be nominated to the Supreme Court. But tonight I am here to talk about a different set of questions. One is more specific and one is broader, but both are important. I will deal with the broader question at some length, but I will raise the more specific question first; that is, the question of a particular aspect of the Judge's record. I happen to serve as the ranking member of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, and I am alarmed at some of the judge's opinions regarding older Americans and Americans with disabilities. I will be walking through some of those cases at a different time, but I have a series of questions that I think are important to have answers to as they relate to his views and the potential opinions he would write that affect older Americans and individuals with disabilities. Because there has been a failure so far to turn over records of his tenure in the White House--documents that some believe number in the millions of pages--it is very difficult to ascertain or even to formulate questions that relate to just these two topics, among many, the two topics being his views on Americans with disabilities and the laws that protect Americans with disabilities and, of course, his views on programs and policies that relate to older Americans. Today I have written to Chairman Grassley, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Ranking Member Feinstein, to demand that the Judiciary Committee obtain and share with me and my staff all documents related to older adults and people with disabilities. The Judiciary Committee is attempting to move forward with Judge Kavanaugh's hearing before--before--we have seen and had a chance to review his entire record. Without Judge Kavanaugh's full record to review and without all of the documents being made available to the committee and, therefore, to the Senate, no Senator can fulfill his or her constitutional duty to provide meaningful advice and consent about this nominee for the highest Court in the land and, I would argue, the most powerful--or at least the most important--Court in the world. This duty could not be more important than it is at this moment. Yesterday, as so many Americans know, it was a very sad day for the country and one of the saddest days in the history of our Republic for two reasons. The President's former attorney, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty to breaking campaign finance laws at the President's direction, according to his statement under oath in open court--that statement of Mr. Cohen. Meanwhile, Paul Manafort, the President's campaign manager, was convicted by a jury on eight counts of tax and bank fraud. Why is that relevant to this discussion about the Supreme Court? I think it is pretty simple. Serious crimes have been committed by close associates of the President. That President has now nominated Judge Kavanaugh to sit on our highest Court, and that particular nominee, Judge Kavanaugh, has views on Executive power and the power of any President to take action. These views must be thoroughly reviewed. That takes not just a review of the record that we have now; I would argue that to fully examine those views, we have to look at his whole record. How can any Senator--how can even the Judiciary Committee--conduct that kind of thorough review when we might have literally millions of pages of documents that are not being made available to the Judiciary Committee and, by extension, to the Senate itself? I don't know how we can complete that kind of an inquiry just on those questions--questions of the power of the President and questions on Executive power more broadly. So because of what happened yesterday, we are now in uncharted waters, probably territory that very few Americans have ever walked through. I don't want to make any historical comparisons because they are never entirely accurate, but I think it is safe to say that we are in uncharted territory. So under these circumstances, it is more important than ever that our courts, up to and including the Supreme Court, act as independent arbiters in our democracy. Any Supreme Court nominee, of course, warrants close, careful, and thorough scrutiny. In this case, this nominee, whose views on Executive power I would argue are extreme, and a nominee who has questioned whether the President can be subpoenaed--of course, that nominee, in this context but even outside this context should be the subject of thorough examination. And because of what happened yesterday, the nominee should receive the most substantial, the toughest scrutiny on a range of questions but, in particular, those that relate to Executive power. I will quote just a few lines from a 1998 Law Review article written by Judge Kavanaugh. He said: ``Congress should give back to the President the full power to act when he believes that a particular independent counsel is `out to get him.' '' He went on to say later: ``The President should have absolute discretion . . . whether and when to appoint an independent counsel.'' So that is just one brief reference in one Law Review article. There are other examples we could cite, obviously Executive power--the power of the President generally but, in particular, the power of a President in the context of an independent counsel, what we now call a special counsel--being involved. These questions are substantial. We know that Judge Kavanaugh, before he was, in fact, Judge Kavanaugh, was a member of a prior administration where he served both as White House Staff Secretary and White House Counsel. Therein lies a lot of information in those documents about his time there, when he assuredly would have expressed opinions on a range of questions, maybe a series of statements or evidence in the record about his views on Executive power, in addition to what he may have said in a speech or in a Law Review article or otherwise. So I believe it would be an abrogation of our constitutional responsibility to move forward on the Kavanaugh nomination without his full--without his full--record set forth for the Judiciary Committee before the hearing begins. And if there are millions of pages still to review, we should give Judiciary Committee members the time to review those documents, formulate questions, and prepare for the hearing. There is no rule or no law that says this hearing has to begin the day after Labor Day or even a few days after Labor Day. I would think that the Senate would want to have the full record--or as close to the full record as possible--before those hearings begin, especially because we have a particularly urgent set of circumstances or set of facts--in light of what happened yesterday with the two individuals in two different courts of law--which could make as a live issue, potentially, these questions of the exercise of Executive power, especially because we have a nominee who has expressed views on those issues. I don't think what I am outlining is in any way unreasonable. Taking a few extra weeks to review that record should be the subject of bipartisan support. So I believe Judge Kavanaugh's full record must be made available for review. I also believe the Senate must be given adequate opportunity to review it, and I think because of the facts and circumstances that are presented with this nominee, with this Presidency, and with this set of facts, the stakes could not be higher. We don't want to be finding out down the road in the midst of a confirmation hearing--or even after the confirmation hearing or even after, potentially, a confirmation vote-- that there are documents in the record that were not brought to the full light of scrutiny that have a bearing on his views that relate to these fundamental issues of Executive power. If a legislative branch of government, in this case the U.S. Senate and, in particular, the Judiciary Committee--if a legislative branch of government in that circumstance doesn't discharge its duty to obtain and to review and then to formulate questions about issues so fundamental as Executive power and the power of the President, especially in the context of a special counsel investigation, I am not sure what the role of the Senate would be in the absence of that kind of review. So I think this is fundamental. It has nothing to do with a point of view or a party or a position; this is fundamental to the process of having a full review of the record. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to discuss the importance of the Justice Department's independent investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 Presidential election. The interference with our election process by a hostile government was an attack on our democracy and a threat to our national security, carried out by Russian operatives at the direction of Vladimir Putin himself. As the intelligence community's unclassified report concluded, ``We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.'' Since Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate Russia's attack, 32 indictments have been returned in connection with the investigation, including indictments against Russian individuals and companies, as well as former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and deputy campaign manager Rick Gates, who were charged with ``conspiracy against the United States.'' Mr. Mueller has also secured guilty pleas from other campaign advisers, including George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn. Despite this ample evidence of wrongdoing, the President has attempted to impede the Russia probe every step of the way, falsely branding it a ``witch hunt.'' So far, the Mueller investigation has continued to produce results, despite these attacks. We must be clear that any attempt to remove special counsel Robert Mueller or Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would take our Nation into uncharted territory. I am disturbed that, last week, a group of the President's allies in the House of Representatives filed unwarranted articles of impeachment against Mr. Rosenstein, who has worked to uphold the rule of law and ensure that the independent Russia investigation can continue. Both Mr. Rosenstein and Mr. Mueller have admirable records of public service. Mr. Mueller, whose qualifications, experience, and character I have previously detailed on the floor, was a decorated hero of the Vietnam war, a U.S. Attorney, and a widely respected director of the FBI. There is no one better equipped to lead the Russia probe. Mr. Rosenstein, like Mr. Mueller, also has a long and distinguished career in public service. A native of Philadelphia, Mr. Rosenstein graduated from the Wharton School and Harvard Law School, after which he clerked for Judge Douglas Ginsburg of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He initially joined the Department of Justice nearly 30 years ago through the Attorney General's Honors Program. He started as a trial attorney with the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division, prosecuting public corruption cases. Mr. Rosenstein rose through the ranks, serving as counsel to the Deputy Attorney General; special assistant to the Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division; associate independent counsel in the Office of the Independent Counsel; and assistant U.S. attorney in Maryland. He was recognized for his work at the Department of Justice with a 1993 ``Commendation Award'' from the Criminal Division, a 1994 ``Outstanding Contribution to Justice'' award from the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, and a 1997 ``Appreciation Award'' from the Criminal Division's Public Integrity Section. In 2001, he became Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division, where he supervised the criminal sections, coordinated tax enforcement activities, and oversaw civil litigation. Then, in 2005, he returned to the Maryland U.S. attorney's office, this time as the top Federal prosecutor. He served as U.S. Attorney for over a decade, until he was nominated to become Deputy Attorney General in 2017. His nomination to this critically important post, at a critically important time for our Nation, was approved overwhelmingly by this body, by a vote of 94 to 6. Mr. Rosenstein has a wealth of experience at the Department of Justice and has served our country and the American public with honor and distinction since he entered the legal profession. During his many years at the Department of Justice, he has shown his commitment to the rule of law and the legal process. At no time could such commitment be more vital. Our rule of law is under siege from multiple fronts, including from members of this administration and the President himself. Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller have so far been able to oversee an independent investigation, but the threat of interference still remains. Both of these respected public servants have been the target of vicious and unfounded partisan attacks with no purpose but to discredit and delegitimize the Russia investigation. These attacks are not only shameful; they are undemocratic. We cannot successfully counter foreign threats to our democracy without holding up our own institutions from within. A fundamental principle of our democracy--equal justice under law--has been tested by this President and his advisers since he entered the White House. We, too, are being tested. As Members of Congress, will we step up as a coequal branch of government and ensure that there are consequences when our principles are breached? As Americans, will we hold our public officials accountable when they work to undermine the democratic values that define us as a nation? That is why I call on Leader McConnell to bring the bipartisan Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act to the floor for a vote. It is why I want to emphasize that any interference with this investigation, whether it is with Mr. Mueller, Mr. Rosenstein, FBI Director Wray, or any other official at the Department of Justice, is a line in the sand that must not be crossed. No one--even and especially the President of the United States--is above the law.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to talk about an important anniversary. Today marks 53 years since the Medicare and Medicaid Programs have been created. I will speak specifically today about Medicaid. Many Americans are familiar with all of the benefits that Medicaid provides to so many Americans, but I don't know if people have a sense of the scope of it. First of all, Medicaid helps 70 million individuals and families in every stage of life. Medicaid covers nearly half of every birth in the United States of America. Medicaid covers 40 percent of all children across the country. In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, it is also true that roughly 40 percent of all of the children have their healthcare covered through Medicaid. Roughly 50 percent of the people with disabilities in our State are covered by Medicaid, and about 60 percent of those who need skilled care, so-called nursing home care-- about 2 million Pennsylvanians--are covered by Medicaid. Medicaid is currently considered the ``gold standard'' for children's healthcare, which includes the early and periodic screening, diagnosis, and treatment benefits, known as EPSDT. It doesn't get a lot of attention, but a lot of the professionals who understand pediatrics and children's healthcare will stress the importance of early and periodic screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Medicaid helps to prevent moms and dads from being forced into deciding whether to put food on their tables or take a child to see a doctor. Through Medicaid, 15 million people with disabilities receive assistance with their healthcare or with durable medical equipment, such as wheelchairs or assistive speaking devices, long-term supports for daily living, such as personal care attendants, and so many other benefits. If you just focus on the category of Americans with disabilities who are children, 60 percent of children in America with disabilities are covered by Medicaid. Medicaid helps Americans afford their Medicare premiums. That is the interplay between both the Medicaid Program and the Medicare Program. Medicaid pays for nursing home care for older relatives who otherwise would incur $75,000 per year of expenses, which would force countless middle-class families out of their homes and deprive them of their hard-earned savings. How about our schools? Forty-eight percent of school districts use Medicaid funds to provide medical and therapy services in schools for children who receive special education. Medicaid also funds transportation for eligible individuals to receive medical services. Finally, on this long list, Medicaid is the primary payer for the treatment and services of opioid addiction, as well as for substance use disorder services. All of those issues are critically important to the American people and especially, of course, to the American family. That is why last year--and continuing into 2018--the efforts that have been made to repeal the Affordable Care Act have had an adverse impact on Medicaid by, in one sense, decimating the program and badly injuring our ability to deliver all of those healthcare benefits to children, to people with disabilities, to seniors. In virtually every bill that has been considered in the Senate or the House, the effect on the opioid crisis has been devastating because of what has happened to the expansion of Medicaid as opposed to the original Medicaid Program itself. I hope our Republican friends will consider all of those benefits and the impact on Medicaid when they are proposing repeal legislation and similar legislative proposals. I will make a point about one family, which I think, in so many ways, is emblematic of a lot of other families when it comes to Medicaid. In Pennsylvania, I received a letter from a mom in Southeastern Pennsylvania. Her name is Pam Simpson. She was writing to me about her son, Rowan. The impact on Rowan Simpson's life, like a lot of children's lives, is incomparable. It is hard to comprehend how beneficial it has been. As I said, his mom Pam sent me a note. Here is what she said, in pertinent part. I will not read all of it, just an excerpt. She said: In late January 2016, I applied for Medicaid assistance. Medical Assistance, I should say. That is the Medicaid Program in Pennsylvania, Medical Assistance. After Rowan was awarded this assistance, we were able to obtain wrap-around services, which included a Behavioral Health Consultant (BSC) and a Therapeutic Staff Support worker (TSS). . . . The wrap-around services have been a Godsend. Toward the end of the letter, Pam Simpson said: Without Medicaid, I am confident that I could not work full time to support our family. We would be bankrupt, or my son-- Meaning Rowan-- would go without the therapies he sincerely needs. Pam Simpson concludes the letter this way: Please think of my dear Rowan and his happy face, his big blue eyes, and his lovely strawberry blonde hair. Please think of me and my husband working every day to support our family. Please think of my 9-month-old daughter, Luna, who smiles and laughs at her brother daily; she will have to care for Rowan later in her life after we are gone. Overall, we are desperately in need of Rowan's Medicaid Assistance and would be devastated if we lost these benefits. That is one mom talking about her son in Pennsylvania, but of course they are representative of so many families across the country. All of us here know--it is pretty evident from the data on where we are positioned in the world--that we are the strongest country in the world--meaning the strongest economy--and that we are also the strongest military power in the world. There is no question about that. But that same country, that same strong country, over time has figured out a way to take care of the American family, especially through a program like Medicaid. Hubert Humphrey said it well years ago. He may have even said this on the Senate floor when he was representing Minnesota. Hubert Humphrey said: ``The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life . . . those who are in the twilight of life . . . and those who are in the shadows of life.'' In a sense, he is talking about children in the dawn of life, those with disabilities and others who might be in the shadows of life, and those who are senior citizens in the twilight of life. No program touches more Americans than the Medicaid Program, and we must continue to work to fight to keep Medicaid strong not just for the next 50 years or 53 years--today is the anniversary--but for many years after that. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

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