Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I am proud to be here this morning to talk about a legislative matter that has taken many years to come to fruition. We were able to work together in a bipartisan manner to reauthorize the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act and make important updates that will support high-quality programs, foster innovation, and improve access for all students. I am very proud to be joined by Senator Enzi, who worked for years on this issue. I will say more about Senator Enzi in a moment. Perkins CTE--``CTE'' standing for ``career and technical education''--is critical to creating jobs and growing wages and ensuring our workers have the tools to outcompete wth anyone in the world. This legislation will empower States and local districts to create programs that provide better outcomes for all students, educators, and our economy. Since the last reauthorization in 2006--you heard that right, 2006-- there have been significant changes to both technology and our economy, and we have a growing skills gap. In Pennsylvania, for example, jobs requiring some postsecondary education and training but not a B.A. account for 54 percent of Pennsylvania's labor market; however, only 43 percent of workers in the State are trained to fill these jobs. This bipartisan legislation will help to close the skills gap by allowing programs to better align with industry needs, ensuring that programs serve as a pipeline to the high-skill, high-wage, or in-demand jobs of today as well as the jobs of tomorrow. In addition, this legislation creates more alignment with Federal laws, such as the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act--known around here by the acronym WIOA--which deals with our workforce, and better alignment with the Higher Education Act, as well as better alignment with the Every Student Succeeds Act, which was the elementary and secondary education law passed in 2015. All of that will help to ensure that our education and workforce programs indeed work together. Similarly, this legislation improves collaboration between secondary schools, institutions of higher education, employers, and other community partners. It increases stakeholder engagement and ensures we have a workforce to support high-quality programs by increasing recruitment of and improving professional development for CTE--career and technical education--educators. I am particularly proud of provisions in this bill that will promote equity and ensure that all students, including students with disabilities, have access to high-quality programs. I am also pleased that provisions in the bill will allow for more career and technical education exploration in both middle and secondary grades. Exposing students to different career and academic pathways early gives them more options and opportunities to succeed. We have come together and passed a strong bill that is responsive to the needs of our communities and will help students, programs, and industries across Pennsylvania and across our Nation to thrive. I look forward to continuing to work on these issues. Now that the House has also passed this legislation, we are looking forward to having the President sign it into law. I want to say how much I appreciate the work that was done over many years by Senator Enzi and his staff, working with my staff and working with me, and the direct involvement of both the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Chairman Alexander, and Ranking Member Patty Murray. We are grateful for their direct help in getting this legislation through the Senate. With that, I yield the floor to my colleague from Wyoming.

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise for two purposes today, and I will start with the anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This is the 28th anniversary of that landmark legislation. Former Senator Tom Harkin served the people of Iowa for more than three decades, if you include House and Senate service. He was a champion for people with disabilities, and I think that is an understatement. For many years, he was the champion. Senator Harkin used to say that the Americans with Disabilities Act was the last great civil rights law of the 20th century. The passage of what we know as the ADA helped to bring into focus a picture that started to develop 150 years ago with the ratification of the 14th Amendment. That great amendment guaranteed equal protection under the law for all. The passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act confirmed that people with disabilities are included in that guarantee of the 14th Amendment. I think it is important to review the goals of the ADA. We have probably lost track of those goals with the passage of time. They need to be repeated. The first goal is equal opportunity. The second goal is independent living. The third goal is full participation. The fourth goal is economic self-sufficiency. That is what we want to achieve for people with disabilities: equal opportunity, independent living, full participation, and economic self-sufficiency. The goals are not achievable, of course, without great support. To achieve those goals, we need actions from governments, actions from businesses, actions from schools and universities, and, indeed, actions from every sector of our society. We need actions to promote and protect the dream that is at the core of the ADA. The ADA affirmed rights outlined in the 14th Amendment. Despite those guarantees, this past year we have seen substantial and, I would argue in many instances, very cruel efforts that threaten equality for people with disabilities. Earlier this year, we saw that the House of Representatives passed a bill that would have gutted title III of the ADA, making public access an afterthought for people with disabilities. In the Senate, with many of our colleagues joined together, we stopped that effort. If they try it again, we will have to stop them from doing it. These threats continue. In the past couple of weeks, we heard officials of this administration claim that segregation and institutionalization with regard to those who have a disability should be acceptable for these Americans with disabilities. The law of our land, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the 1999 Supreme Court Olmstead decision say otherwise. They say that the values and policy of the United States are for the inclusion--the inclusion--of people with disabilities. That statute and that Supreme Court decision do not say that the United States supports segregation, isolation, and institutionalization of people with disabilities. I hope the administration will further clarify what their position is because it is contrary to law, but it is also an insult to our values. It seems that on many days in the last year and a half, if not longer, the Republican majority, both here in the Senate and in the House, has been focused on three objectives when it comes to healthcare: rip away, decimate, and sabotage. Ripping away protections like those for preexisting conditions in the Affordable Care Act, decimating the Medicaid Program, and sabotaging our healthcare system are actions by the administration that some Republicans have not interfered with. You have an administration that on a daily and weekly basis over many months now has sabotaged our system--sabotaged the individual market and sabotaged people's ability to get healthcare. We are going to continue to fight against that. One of the biggest fights we are going to have is on Medicaid. Medicaid in Pennsylvania affects more than 2 million people. It has an impact because of the healthcare benefit it provides on 40 percent of the children of my State, 50 percent of the people with disabilities, and more than 60 percent of folks trying get into nursing homes. When it comes to Medicaid, I am going to fight to the end of the Earth to protect it, not to sit down and have a nice discussion about it but to protect it. If they want to take it on, we are going to continue to fight against them as long as it takes. No matter how hard or how long that fight is, we are going to fight it. Despite the progress we have made with the Americans with Disabilities Act and a lot of other progress in the interim, we still have a ways to go for the promise and the dream that many Americans with disabilities have had. We need further action, further legislation, further work in a bipartisan manner. I hope that will be the case on two of my bills. Let me outline them quickly. No. 1, I just introduced a Disability Employment Incentive Act, which encourages businesses to hire more people with disabilities. The disability workforce is robust, creative, reliable, loyal, and productive. We need more people with disabilities in competitive, integrated employment to strengthen our economy and to enhance the capacity of our businesses. The second bill I have is to protect people with disabilities and their families, so we have introduced the Office of Disability Policy Act. As sabotage continues to occur by the administration, we need accurate, nonpartisan information about proposals that could harm people with disabilities and the infrastructure that makes it possible for them to participate in our society. We have a responsibility to know when a law that is being proposed-- or an action by an administration--will benefit or adversely affect 56 million Americans with disabilities. During this month, when we celebrate the 150th anniversary of the ratification of the 14th Amendment and the 28th anniversary of the signing of the ADA, we need to remember we all have a responsibility to complete the picture and to help Americans with disabilities to realize the dream. As a nation, our duty now is to take the actions that protect and enhance the rights of all Americans, including those with disabilities, and to make equality for all a reality. Healthcare Let me conclude with some thoughts about the recent debate about protections for preexisting conditions. As I said before, it seems that Republicans in Washington have a maniacal obsession with decimating Medicaid, wiping out the ACA protections, including protections for preexisting conditions. Now that we have changed the law, we said: ``If you have cancer, you can still get coverage or treatment.'' Now I guess some here want to take us back. We have 5.3 million people in Pennsylvania with preexisting conditions; 643,000 of them are children. We are not going back. We are not going back to those days when those 5.3 million people in Pennsylvania don't have protection. We are not going back. If they want to have a fight about it, we will fight about it. Last year, I heard from Liz from West Chester, PA--suburban Philadelphia--who was diagnosed with cancer at the age of 26. Here is what she told me: For years I worried about losing my job and with it my insurance because I have costly preexisting conditions. This stress added to the stress of my diagnosis, treatments, and work/life balance. Then she goes on to say: Weight lifted off my shoulders when the preexisting condition protections became law. Now those protections are threatened. So a weight was lifted off her shoulders because of an advancement in law because we protected people with preexisting conditions. Now some people here want to add that weight back onto her shoulders. That has to be stopped at all costs, and we will stop it. This latest scheme, this court case trying to overturn preexisting conditions protections, is why Senator Manchin and I are leading the effort on a resolution to authorize the Senate legal counsel to intervene in the case of Texas v. The United States. This would be devastating for millions of people across the country. I mentioned 5.3 million in Pennsylvania with preexisting conditions-- 133 million across the country. Any of us--all of us--are vulnerable when the preexisting conditions protections are targeted. It is outrageous--outrageous--that the Department of Justice is weighing in against the law of the land and arguing that these protections for individuals with preexisting conditions should be struck down. We must defeat--defeat--this cruel attempt to rip away these protections. I will fight every day to make sure every American--no matter where they live or what their health status is--has access to the healthcare they need. It is good that we are celebrating the 28th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. We are happy about that, but at the same time, we need to be vigilant against attempts to undermine progress we have made since the ADA and progress we have made more recently. 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

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Carmella Mary Rizzo, who passed away at the age of 101 on July 15, 2018. Carmella was the wife of former Philadelphia mayor Frank L. Rizzo and will be remembered for her community advocacy and political prowess. I admired her very much, and I am grateful to have known her. Born on July 25, 1916, Carmella was raised in a large family in the Chestnut Hill neighborhood of Philadelphia. The daughter of first- generation Italian Americans, her family encouraged her to form her own identity and establish close ties within the Philadelphia community. In 1942, she married Frank L. Rizzo, a Philadelphia police officer. Frank and Carmella had two children, Francis and Joanna. During her husband's time as police commissioner and as a two-term mayor of Philadelphia, Carmella avoided the spotlight. She did, however, play a private yet pivotal role in Mayor Rizzo's career. Notably compassionate, Carmella regularly discussed community affairs with her husband during his administration in the 1970s. Carmella's insight and charisma proved invaluable to the city of Philadelphia. Carmella passed away just a day shy of the 27th anniversary of Mayor Rizzo's passing. In the years after his death, she remained very close to her children and grandchildren. It is my honor to commemorate the life of Carmella Rizzo, a woman whose decades of advocacy for Philadelphians has set an example for many to follow.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss what is on so many Americans' minds today and the last couple of days--President Trump's recent trip to Europe, his meeting with Vladimir Putin, and his comments about Russia's interference in our elections. So many Pennsylvanians--and I am sure this is true in every other State--have called or written to our office this week in complete disbelief asking: What is next? Where do we go from here? These are good questions. They are critically important questions. This President's views on Russia's past actions and the way forward have seemed to change every day this week. Rather than focus on the news cycle following the Helsinki summit, I want to take a minute to review where things stood before--before--the President went to Europe. Relations between the United States and Russia have been deteriorating for some time. We know that. The Russian Federation is clearly and unequivocally our adversary. Vladimir Putin envisions a world more closely resembling the Cold War era, certainly, than compared to today's realities, and he works toward a resurgence of Russian power and influence every day. Just take a few examples. Russia attacked, annexed, and continues to illegally occupy Crimea. Russian-backed forces continue to violate cease-fire agreements in Ukraine and destabilize other parts of that country, preventing the Ukrainian people from fulfilling their dream of a secure and prosperous nation. Russia is backing and enabling the murderous Assad regime in Syria. The conflict has emboldened terrorist groups, had dramatic humanitarian impacts, and has threatened the region's stability. As many as a half million people have been killed, and half the country has been displaced. Just imagine if half of our population, say 150 million people, were displaced from their homes, sometimes to another part of the country and sometimes to a completely different country. That is the reality in Syria since 2011, and Russia has prolonged and exacerbated the Syrian people's suffering for its own power projection. No. 4, Russia is also developing a stronger relationship with the Iranian regime and is reportedly considering arms sales and boosting their economic relationship. This threatens not only our national security interests in the Middle East but also those security interests of our staunchest ally, Israel. Finally, Russia continues to have a substantial nuclear arsenal. It has violated the INF Treaty, and according to the Defense Department, is developing low-yield, nonstrategic nuclear weapons that could threaten our allies and partners. Russia uses any number of tools, from manipulation of the energy supply to arms sales, to loans and aid to promote its brand of corrupt authoritarian governance around the world. It also employs nefarious means like hacking, espionage, and sowing false information to meddle in the most fundamental parts of our great democracy--our elections and, of course, those of other countries. I don't think it is wrong for a United States President to meet with a hostile foreign leader. That is part of the job. What is dead wrong is to sit across from a hostile foreign leader, one on one, with no notes, no staff, and to fail completely-- completely--at your core mission, your job, which is protecting the national security interests of the American people. To many people, it might seem odd to be focused on who was or wasn't in the room or whether any notes were taken, but without them, there is absolutely no accountability for what was said. We hear that the Russian military--let me say that again--the Russian military is ready to start implementing the agreements reached between President Trump and Vladimir Putin in that room. We have to ask the President of the United States, what agreements? What did you agree to in that room? What did the leader of our Nation agree to that the Russian military is so eager to start implementing? Further, there seems to have been some discussion between President Trump and Vladimir Putin about the Russian Government's interest in interrogating U.S. citizens, like former Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul. Yesterday, we heard the White House say the President was giving that absurd proposal serious consideration. Of course Putin wants to question Ambassador McFaul. He is an expert on Russia who served our country honorably as Ambassador and as a public servant. He stood up to Russian aggression and promoted U.S. national security interests, especially when they contradicted Moscow's agenda. The idea that we would entertain handing over an American citizen to an authoritarian Russian Government with no rule of law and no history of treating people fairly--and, of course, with a history of interrogating and torturing political opponents--that is not only insulting to our values, it is dangerous and it is wrong. That is not America. No official in our government--of any branch of government-- should support that. If the administration tries it, the Congress should take every effort to stop them from doing that. The Russian threat is serious and persistent. It isn't solved by one meeting and a press conference. It will take sustained commitment from the national security professionals across our government, and it will take real vision and leadership from the President and his Cabinet. I do not object to meeting with an adversary, nor does anyone. That is part of the job of being President. Instead, what I am concerned about, what a lot of Americans are concerned about, is this President's conduct during and after that meeting, especially his unwillingness to say without reservation or caveat that Russia was responsible for hacking our elections in 2016 and continues to meddle in our democratic process. This isn't a political judgment; it is the judgment of our intelligence and law enforcement experts, and it led to the indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence hackers this past Friday. Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats reaffirmed this judgment just this week, saying: The role of the Intelligence Community is to provide the best information and fact-based assessments possible for the President and policymakers. We have been clear in our assessments of Russian meddling in the 2016 election and their ongoing, pervasive efforts to undermine our democracy, and we will continue to provide unvarnished and objective intelligence in support of our national security. So said the Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats. Why can't the President say this and say it repeatedly, that he agrees with their assessment and is working to stop Russia from doing it again? My constituents, like so many Americans, were right to ask: Where do we go from here? There is no playbook for this scenario. I believe we must act in a bipartisan fashion to make clear to Russia that the U.S. Congress will not stand for continued interference in our elections and will work to counter them on other fronts. First, we should enact new legislation to levy sanctions on Russian entities responsible for this malicious behavior and demand the administration fully implement legislation that was passed with an overwhelming bipartisan majority last year. No. 2, we must pass legislation to protect the special counsel and to shine a bright light on the dark money in politics. No. 3, we must fully fund State and municipal efforts to shore up our electoral systems. No. 4, we must speak out in support of our alliances. Many of our closest international partners are right on the frontlines of Russia's destabilizing actions. Finally, we should insist that the administration answer the questions so many of us have about what happened in that room in Helsinki and what they plan to do to counter Russia and protect our national security interests. We are in uncharted waters in terms of the actions of the President. His actions the last 2 weeks have made us less safe. I will say it again--less safe. He must take decisive action to guarantee our security by confronting malign Russian aggression against the United States and our NATO allies and partners. At the same time, Congress, both parties, both Houses, must act to protect our security and make it clear to the President that this branch of government will continue to discharge its constitutional duties. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to join the Philadelphia community in renaming the 6000 block of Springfield Avenue to Marcus J. Yates Way. Thirty years ago, on July 18, 1988, a gun fight on this block took the life of 5-year-old Marcus Yates. Marcus's death was a tragedy that prompted Philadelphia residents to seek change in their community, and while today's street dedication leaves us with a daily reminder of Marcus's life, it also serves as a testament to the dedication of the Yates family and those who stood alongside them, to ensure that his death would not be in vain. Marcus's killing served as the inspiration for efforts to better protect the children of west Philadelphia. Neighbors looked to create new, safer spaces for children, with residents setting up sports teams and drama clubs. Following the incident, citizens also organized a number of antidrug groups and held antidrug marches throughout the city, citing the increase in drug trafficking as a cause for the increase in gun violence in the community. In 1990, the Yates family opened the Marcus J. Yates Home for Children, housing over 30 foster children from the area. Since their son's death, the Yates family has become advocates against gun violence, seeking to prevent similar devastation from occurring throughout the Nation. They have taken this effort from the municipal level all the way to the Federal Government. When people described Marcus, they often commented on his vibrant, welcoming spirit. It is a tragedy that the community lost a bright soul at such a young age. Through the efforts of Marcus's family and his community, his legacy is one of advocacy and action. They have worked tirelessly to ensure that his short life was not lost in vain. The efforts of the West Philadelphia community, as well as the resilience of the Yates family are examples for us all. Their actions show us that with compassion and collaboration, tragedy can be a driving force for positive change. We honor their efforts and their persistence today on the anniversary of a life taken too soon.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise not even, I guess, 24 hours since the news broke across the airwaves about what the President was saying and what he was not saying in Helsinki with Vladimir Putin being just a few feet away from him. That was a terrible moment for our country. Yet, in the aftermath of that, folks came together from across the country and from across all kinds of usual lines of division. Democrats and Republicans came together to express both outrage at the insult but also, I think, to express a sense of solidarity about the path forward--that this moment of crisis in our national security has to be met with bipartisan consensus. Thank goodness that has prevailed so far. We have a long way to go, but that was a good moment for the country after a very bad moment. I am not here tonight to talk about that, but I want to point to it as an example of the sides coming together on a big issue. I think there have been other moments this year. At one point, when we passed appropriations legislation, there was a strong investment in national security and national defense but also investments in priorities like education and healthcare and the opioid crisis and childcare and the National Institutes of Health--on and on. Great investments for our country will help us grow and make us stronger. The farm bill recently passed the Senate. That was overwhelmingly bipartisan. So there have been good moments. I am afraid, on the Judiciary, we have had, unfortunately, the opposite. Since I have been in the Senate--and as Senator Wyden referred to earlier--I have had the privilege of working with colleagues on nominations for the U.S. district court in Pennsylvania-- for the Eastern District, the Middle District, and the Western District. It has been a collaborative process. Since 2011, in working with Senator Toomey, even though we are on opposite sides of the aisle, we have confirmed--I think it is--14 judges because we have collaborated. There has been give-and-take, and there has been review and scrutiny and then, ultimately, consensus in allowing a candidate to go forward. No Federal judge in those years would have gone forward without the signing of the blue slip that has been referred to tonight by both Senators. It happened in the past when there were two Republican Senators, but now, with a split delegation, that tradition continues in our State. It is a good tradition. It is the right way to do it. That tradition prevailed until recently, when it came to appellate court judges--in my case, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which includes Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the Virgin Islands. Even at the very end of the Obama administration, my colleague from Pennsylvania objected and would not return a blue slip. That nomination for the Third Circuit, at that time, did not go forward. I respected the blue slip that my colleague decided not to sign. The Obama administration respected it, and that nomination didn't go forward. I didn't like it, but that is what the agreement was. Now we are into this new world where, just recently, as our two colleagues from Oregon are talking about what has happened in the Ninth Circuit, which is in the northwestern corner of our country, and in the Third Circuit, which is where I live and where I work, we had a nomination go forward without a blue slip that had been signed by me. My point of view was disregarded by both the White House and the Senate Judiciary Committee in contravention of years of tradition--and not tradition for the sake of tradition but of practice because it allows you to arrive at a consensus pick that both parties have to agree on. That is not good for the Senate. It is not good for the judiciary. It is, ultimately, not good for the American people because, if one party has total control, as the Republican Party has now with both Houses of Congress and the administration, you are going to get judges with only one point of view. That leads me to my last point for the night, which will take a few minutes, but I want to make sure this gets on the record. Another piece of bad news, in terms of the judiciary, unlike the other good news about consensus in other areas of our work, is what has happened under this administration with regard to the selection process for the Supreme Court. This has never happened before when, during a campaign, organizations--in this case, only two--come together and present a list of names. That list of names is, in essence, a bargain between a candidate and those groups. Then that is carried forward to the administration. Now we have a list of just 25 names--25. The last time we checked, there were about 700 Federal judges in the United States of America. The President could pick any one of those Federal judges. Many of them--I don't know how many--had been chosen by Republican Presidents. Many of them are very conservative or conservative, and some are moderates. Apparently, the only way you get on that list is to be hard right. You have to pass whatever tests are applied by the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society. This list has been designed to do the bidding of corporate special interests that are determined to handle healthcare in a fashion that none of us would want it handled--by giving the power back to insurance companies to make decisions on healthcare. It is a corporate agenda that crushes unions or seeks to crush unions. It represents working men and women and promotes policies that, in my judgment, will leave the middle class further behind. So any judge on this list, which I would argue is a corrupt bargain between the advocate and those groups and now the President and those groups, is fruit of a corrupt process. Just by way of example, the Heritage Foundation is an extreme rightwing organization. That organization just released a new proposal to end protections for people with preexisting conditions, to gut Medicaid for seniors, people with disabilities, and children. They recently hosted a press conference for Republican attorneys general who are trying to eliminate those protections through the courts. Just in one State, Pennsylvania, more than 5.3 million people have preexisting conditions. That is almost half the population of Pennsylvania. Those 5.3 million people include over 643,000 children who have preexisting conditions. The Heritage Foundation wants to take us back to those dark days in which you could be denied treatment or coverage because of your having a preexisting condition. I don't know many Pennsylvanians who want to go back to those days, to turn back the clock in that fashion. The Heritage Foundation also called labor unions cartels. Labor unions, of course, helped to build the greatest middle class ever known to man. In my State, from the formation of the first permanent Pennsylvania local labor union in Philadelphia in 1792 to the Lattimer massacre in Northeastern Pennsylvania, which is one county away from me, to the Homestead strike in Western Pennsylvania--in all of those struggles, Pennsylvania's workers have led the way to ensuring that working people have basic rights, good wages, and of course benefits like healthcare. Yet you have organizations in the United States of America that want to rip away protections that people recently gained when it comes to healthcare. The last thing--the very last thing--working men and women in Pennsylvania need is another corporate judge on an increasingly corporate court. Here is some evidence for that assertion. A review by the Constitutional Accountability Center shows the consequences of the Court's corporate tilt, finding that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has had a success rate of 70 percent in cases before the Roberts Court since 2006, a significant increase over previous Courts that were thought to be conservative, I guess. In the most recent term, the Court sided with corporate interests in 9 out of 10 cases in which the U.S. Chamber of Commerce advocated for a position. I was elected by the people of Pennsylvania to represent all Pennsylvanians and to advance policies, especially when it comes to making decisions about judges and Justices in a fashion that would give meaning and integrity to what is inscribed on the Supreme Court: ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' I was not sent here to genuflect to the hard right or to any organization. In this case, I certainly was not sent here to genuflect to the hard right with regard to groups funded by corporate America. President Lincoln said it best about what he hoped our Nation would be. He called on our Nation to work to ensure ``that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.'' It seems that some in Washington today--and I have to say, the administration with them, with this nomination to the Supreme Court, most recently announced--are determined to pack the Court with a government of, by, and for extreme right, corporate special interests. So I oppose the President's nomination because it is a corrupt bargain, as I said before, with the far right, big corporations, and what can only be called Washington special interests. On a night like tonight, when we are talking about major matters of justice--how our courts will function, whether they will be balanced, whether there will be mainstream judges and Justices--I hope we will go back to that model that still prevails in some States--I would say in most States--when it comes to district court judges: collaboration between and among Democrats and Republicans. It is now being jettisoned at the appellate court level, certainly in the Third Circuit and now apparently in the Ninth Circuit and several others. Of course, on the Supreme Court, there is no consultation. There is consultation with two groups; that is it--and maybe some others who get to be in the room. But if you are a conservative judge in America today, appointed by a Republican, you need not apply to become a Supreme Court Justice. You have to be hard right enough to be on that list of 25. You could be one of those hundreds of conservative judges, but you are not going to get on the list of 25 because you haven't demonstrated that you are hard right enough. I think it pains all of us that we are at this point. There were days, not too long ago, when Presidents consulted with both parties before--before--a Supreme Court nomination. We know that. That is on the record, as clear as day. But now we have this list, and only the list for the Supreme Court. Now we have blue slips that are being thrown out the window or not honored when it comes to the appellate courts. I hope that this kind of cancer doesn't go all the way to the Federal district courts. I think all of us wish we were in a different place, and I hope we can return to those traditions that lead to consensus and, I think, lead to bipartisan collaboration and, ultimately, better fulfillment of that goal and that value of equal justice under law. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise to address the issue that I know folks in both parties of both Houses, and, of course, across the country, are concerned about; that is, the issue of child separation at the border. This is, unfortunately, an issue that because there is so much outrage, there is, in fact, substantial unity against the policy that is in place right now. I am, like a lot of Americans, vehemently opposed to the policy of what, in essence, amounts to ripping children away from their parents. I, like a lot of Americans, have demanded that the President and his administration end this cruel policy immediately. We are hearing some reports that there may be an action taken. I don't know what that action will be, but I hope it is an action that will end the policy. Until we know that, we have to continue to urge the President to do the right thing. Earlier this week, the Department of Homeland Security released data showing that between May 5 and June 9--just a little more than a month--2,342 children were taken from their parents at the border. That is about 70 children per day taken from their parents. I have received thousands of emails, letters, and phone calls from concerned Pennsylvanians who are demanding an immediate end to the policy. I never imagined that I would have to stand here today, nor should anyone, to talk about a scenario where the U.S. Government is separating children from their parents at the border. That seems incomprehensible that would ever happen, but it has. I am reading part of a statement that reads as follows: Our government is forcibly separating children--including toddlers--from their parents and sending them to detention facilities as a means of sending a message and influencing Congress. That was a statement not made by a Democratic Senator or a Democratic House Member or a Republican or any politician; that was part of a larger statement made by Thomas Donahue, the president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--not someone who is very often lined up on the same side as Democratic Senators. I think that is an understatement. To say this policy is cruel, inhumane, and an insult to the values of our Nation is to utter an understatement. This is a policy that is straight from the pit of hell, and there is probably worse that we could say about it. It is hard to comprehend that any administration at any time would propose, let alone implement, a policy that would result in children being separated from their parents. Unlike what the administration has tried to argue, this is not about following the law or securing the border. Neither of those statements is relevant here. This is a conscious decision by this administration, which is contrary to the decisions by the last two administrations--one a Republican administration, the other a Democratic administration-- that decided not to separate children from their parents. Unfortunately, this administration decided to do just that. Many people have heard the statements attributed to the American Academy of Pediatrics. There were several different folks who were quoted on this, depending on which medical organizations they belonged to. One of the most compelling statements was by Dr. Colleen Kraft, the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics. She is obviously an expert about children and is from an expert organization. Dr. Kraft visited a children's immigration detention facility in Texas earlier this month. She called what she saw there, in the systemic separation of children from their parents, ``a form of child abuse.'' According to Dr. Kraft, once young children are separated from their caregivers or parents, they are likely to develop toxic stress in their brains. The toxic stress disrupts children's brain development and increases levels of flight-or-fight hormones in their bodies. This kind of emotional trauma could eventually lead to children having health problems, such as heart disease and substance abuse disorders. There is well-documented scientific evidence of the long-lasting harm that policies like this have on children. In the Washington Post yesterday, in an article entitled ``What Separation from Parents Does to Children,'' a professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Dr. Charles Nelson, said: The effect is catastrophic. There's so much research on this that if people paid attention at all to the science, they would never do this. It goes on and on and on. I could quote more detail for a long time about what he has said and about what other experts have said, but we don't have time today. Suffice it to say the research that shows the damage that is done to children when they are forcibly separated from their parents explains why more than 9,000 mental health professionals and 172 organizations signed a petition to urge the President to end the policy of separating families. In this petition, the mental health professionals wrote: From decades of research and direct clinical experience, we know that the impact of disrupted attachment manifests not only in overwhelming fear and panic at the time of separation, but that there is a strong likelihood that these children's behavioral, psychological, interpersonal, and cognitive trajectories will also be affected. The National Child Traumatic Stress Network notes that children may develop post traumatic responses following separation from their parents and specifically lists immigration and parental deportation as situations of potentially traumatic separation. To pretend that separated children do not grow up with the shrapnel of this traumatic experience embedded in their minds is to disregard everything we know about child development, the brain, and trauma. That is from the petition that was signed by mental health professionals across the country--9,000 of them. Those professionals and the professionals at the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, and the American Psychiatric Association have also issued statements against the policy. Together, these organizations represent more than 250,000 doctors across the country. To support this policy, you would have to assert that a quarter of a million doctors in the United States of America are somehow wrong and that you know better. If we were to ask the administration, ``Before you put this policy in place, did you talk to the American Academy of Pediatrics? Did you talk to child psychologists? Did you talk to the American College of Physicians or other professionals who know something about children and trauma and long-term damage to their brains and to their development?'' I am afraid the answer to that question would be no. Yet I await the answer from the administration. I hope the answer will be yes. I have more here, but I know we have to go, so I will not use all of it. Over the next couple of hours and days, we have to keep insisting that the administration take action to end this policy today, which it could--which the President could, which the Attorney General could. I realize that sometimes here in Washington, people say: Do something right now. Take action today. Take action this week or this month. Yet, in this case, today matters; hours matter; days matter in the lives of those children--more than 2,300 or more, and the projections are just going through the roof about what will happen over the next couple of weeks and month. Ending the policy today and reuniting child and parent matters a lot because every day that goes by makes it worse for that child. Unfortunately, for some children, it might be too late. That traumatic event and the aftereffects--the hours and the days and even weeks now that they have been separated--might result in permanent damage. I hope I am wrong about this, but days matter here, and even hours matter. We are hoping that the administration will reverse course on a policy--I will say again and keep saying--that is straight from the pit of hell. It should end today. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Greater Scranton Chamber of Commerce on their 150th anniversary. I am proud to highlight their many accomplishments and significant contributions to my hometown of Scranton and northeastern Pennsylvania. Eleven years after the city of Scranton was incorporated, 13 visionary and ambitious men met in the upstairs of a grocery store and formed the Merchants Association to encourage the economic growth of the city. Scranton was an industrial center of mining and railroads, and the association's first order of business was to establish equitable freight rates. Later, the association was renamed the Scranton Board of Trade and in 1923 was officially chartered as the Greater Scranton Chamber of Commerce. For a century and a half, the chamber has actively served the region, always with the mission of cultivating a healthy business ecosystem that could attract, preserve, and create jobs in the area. In fact, the chamber has always been a national leader and trendsetter within the business community. In 1945, as many Scrantonians were serving in World War II, the chamber spearheaded a community effort to save jobs at the Murray Bomber Wing Plant, which resulted in the launching of the Scranton Lackawanna Industrial Building Company. This innovative effort created what is considered the American standard model for economic development. Today, as the largest business network in northeastern Pennsylvania with more than 1,500 member companies representing a variety of employers, the chamber helps to foster economic development, provides small businesses access to affordable capital, facilitates leadership development programs, and leads workforce development initiatives. From Scranton's early days as a hub for American entrepreneurship and industry, the chamber has played a critical role and continues to be one of the region's strongest and most effective business and community advocates. It has worked in partnership with numerous stakeholders to address the challenges brought on by an ever-changing regional economy. Although the mining and freight-dependent industries that represented the growth of the greater Scranton region's early days represent a bygone era, today, new industries now call northeastern Pennsylvania home. These new fields of business have helped the area become a regional leader in education, medicine, and manufacturing. Today, the region builds upon its rich history of industrial ingenuity, economic prosperity, and most notably, new Americans and immigrants seeking opportunity. In light of the region's diverse heritage and progress towards true equality, the chamber hosted its inaugural NEPA Women's Leadership Conference in 2015. I am proud of the chamber's continued efforts as it strives to promote the region as an ideal location for businesses of all genders, ethnicities, races, socioeconomic groups, sizes, and fields. The greater Scranton area continues to be well positioned to attract and retain businesses, startups, and entrepreneurial ventures. It is a privilege to pay tribute to Greater Scranton Chamber of Commerce's historic legacy and the contributions its members have made to the city of Scranton and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania over the last 150 years. I wish the chamber continued success and prosperity as it celebrates this extraordinary sesquicentennial anniversary.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Mr. William T. Kerr and his contributions to the creation of Flag Day. His passion for the flag spurred a lifetime pursuit to establish a national holiday to honor it. Mr. Kerr grew up in Pittsburgh and established himself in Yeadon, PA. After hearing the stories of sacrifice and patriotism during the Civil War, Mr. Kerr garnered a unique appreciation for the flag of the United States. In 1888, Mr. Kerr established the American Flag Day Association, an organization committed to promoting patriotism and respect for the flag on a national scale and establishing Flag Day on June 14. In Mr. Kerr's capacity as the president of the American Flag Day Association, a position he held for five decades, he met with nine Presidents and wrote countless letters to Senators, Members of Congress, Governors, and local officials to petition for Flag Day to be celebrated on June 14. Mr. Kerr's activism inspired several leaders, including President Woodrow Wilson, who went on to proclaim June 14 as National Flag Day on May 30, 1916, and General Douglas MacArthur, who wrote a letter to Mr. Kerr in 1947, citing reverence and honor in the flag itself. Though Congress initially failed to submit legislation to President Wilson supporting the proclamation to recognize the holiday, three decades later, Congress passed a bill formally declaring June 14 as National Flag Day. On August 3, 1949, President Harry S. Truman, with Mr. Kerr standing next to him, signed the Flag Day bill into law, formally declaring June 14 as National Flag Day. I commend Mr. Kerr on his commitment to creating a day to honor the flag. Pennsylvanians are renowned for their hard work, dedication, perseverance, and patriotism, and Mr. Kerr is an excellent example of that assessment. Mr. Kerr's legacy has lived on, especially in the small farm town of Yeadon, where the town celebrates Flag Day as an all-day affair.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to highlight some of the great successes of our drug courts around the Nation. May is National Drug Court Month, and I have come to the floor today to highlight the work of these innovative courts--I think that is an understatement--which play a unique role in our justice system. Participants in the drug court system receive treatment and support services to help these individuals recover, and the individuals are held accountable through regular drug testing and judicial supervision. These courts are uniquely equipped for nonviolent substance abuse offenders, and they provide eligible individuals with intensive treatment, individualized consequences, and other medical services in order to help them overcome their substance use disorder--something we have heard a lot about in every State. Participants are randomly tested for drug use and mandated to appear frequently in court so that the drug court judge can review their progress. The judge also holds drug court participants accountable for their obligations to the court and, of course, to society at large. All of these features make drug courts particularly important as we deal with the opioid crisis that has affected so many individuals, families, and communities in Pennsylvania and across the country. No neighborhood--no region of the State--is safe in this horror that we have been living through now for several years. Given the scope and severity of the opioid epidemic, we need to invest in effective solutions. I use that word purposefully-- ``invest.'' With their proven track record of success, drug courts should be a keystone of our efforts to deal with the opioid crisis. Drug court systems not only save money, but they also reduce both drug use and crime itself. Recidivism rates among drug court participants are significantly lower than for those defendants undergoing traditional sentencing procedures. Around 50 to 70 percent of drug court participants complete at least a year of treatment, and 75 percent of graduates remain arrest-free for the next 2 years. Let me say that again: 75 percent of drug court graduates remain arrest-free for the next 2 years. Additionally, studies have found that the use of drug courts save taxpayer money by lowering overall criminal justice costs. There are a lot of success stories from drug court graduates, and I want to highlight one today from Schuylkill County, PA, the Schuylkill County Drug Treatment Court. This constituent of mine struggled with opioid and alcohol use disorder and spent time in prison before going through the drug court system. According to the probation officer, this Pennsylvanian is now ``gainfully employed, has regained a positive relationship with family, is working towards maintaining sobriety and is now working towards the long-term goal of buying a home.'' That is just one story about one individual, who said: I used to think about how much I wanted to use and what I wanted to use. Now I think about going to work and coming home to my fiancee and children. That is one success story but a very powerful story. As the probation officer said, that is just one of many ``incredible stories of progress and redemption found in drug courts.'' As we observe National Drug Court Month, I encourage my colleagues to continue supporting the innovative and effective work of these drug court programs. I want to thank the judges, officers, and other professionals who help make these success stories a reality every week.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise, first of all, to thank Senator Donnelly for his leadership and my colleagues. I am speaking today on behalf of hundreds of thousands of people in Pennsylvania who currently rely or will rely upon a pension. The multiemployer pension program protects about 10 million workers and retirees in about 1,400 pension plans across the country. In Pennsylvania, that number is 230 multiemployer pension plans, with a total of about 910,000 beneficiaries. Without action, the full pensions of over 33,000 Pennsylvanians are at risk, as is the solvency of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. In 2017 the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation paid $462 million to Pennsylvanians whose pension plans had failed. That is about $5,800 on average. Democrats in the Senate have been fighting to preserve these earned benefits for our retirees for years, including our Nation's coal miners. The fight for our coal miners we have just half-won. We were successful in making sure that their promised healthcare benefits are there for them, but we still have work to do with regard to pensions. It is inexcusable that Americans who have earned these benefits have to worry, as some do, and they have been worrying for many years. We know what the tax bill did, among many things, for very wealthy interests. The tax bill that got rammed through the Senate in December of last year gave $13 billion in tax windfalls to our Nation's six largest banks. That is $13 billion for 1 year--this year alone--and they are all unpaid for. So the debt goes up. Six big banks get $13 billion, and yet this body, the Senate, can't deliver on the promise of pensions to hundreds of thousands across the country. Let me give you three quick examples in the limited time we have. Debbie, from Western Pennsylvania, wrote about the miners pension act. She said in part, talking about her family: ``We depend on my dad's pension to survive on the limited income.'' So said Debbie from Western Pennsylvania. Dennis, also from Southwestern Pennsylvania, drove a truck for 25 years of his life, ``working long hours away from my family,'' he said, ``to provide a good living.'' He said: ``I . . . would appreciate it if you could do whatever you can to preserve that pension for my wife and for me.'' Stuart from Northeastern Pennsylvania--the corner of the State I live in--is a bakery and confectionary union pensioner. He said: Please help save our BCTGM pension fund. I paid into that pension system for 26 years and depend on it greatly. I work three jobs and my wife works two jobs. We have put one child thru college and one just entered. None of these families should have to worry about these earned benefits--this measure of retirement security, so we have a long way to go. But I am grateful that we are willing to work together on both sides of the aisle, and I am especially grateful that Democrats have been united in finally keeping that promise to those who have earned these benefits, those who have earned these pensions. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Alex Borgelt of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I was on the floor today to first and foremost congratulate Senator Duckworth on the new addition to her family. We were anticipating seeing a new baby, and now we will be able to meet that child right here on the Senate floor. We do want to commend and salute Senator Duckworth, of course--long before today--on her life of service and remarkable courage and sacrifice, and our Nation owes her a debt of gratitude, not just for this recent news about her resolution but also for her great service to the country. This resolution is an important step forward for the U.S. Senate in terms of the people who are permitted to be on the floor, and we are glad that we have such consensus to make it possible for the youngest among us to get to the floor. It is also one way to demonstrate our Nation's commitment to families and policies that allow children to get off to a strong and smart start to their lives. So many of us have worked on those policies for many years, whether it is making childcare more affordable, paid family leave, flexible work arrangements, or so many other priorities. I hope we can use this opportunity to continue to work together to benefit our Nation's children, and we are grateful to be part of that effort. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to Edward J. Cernic, Sr., a beloved father, grandfather, husband, politician, and member of his community in Johnstown, Cambria County, PA. Affectionately known as ``Pap,'' Ed dedicated his life to his family and community. Ed passed away on March 21, 2018, at the age of 85. Ed believed in the importance of civic duty and touched countless lives in his hometown of Tanneryville, near Johnstown. He cared deeply about his community and was a powerful advocate for his region, especially in times of turmoil. In the aftermath of the 1977 Johnstown Flood, a disaster which took 84 lives in Cambria County, Ed headed the Tanneryville Flood Recovery Association and raised more than $100,000 in recovery funds. He was a leader in an effort that took 17 busloads of people to Washington, DC to advocate for Federal flood relief funding. He even maneuvered a meeting with President Jimmy Carter after slipping a note to first lady Rosalyn Carter during a campaign stop in Johnstown. Their brief sit-down resulted in Federal support for the entire city. That was the kind of leader that Ed was: an honorable man with a big heart, who always put his community first. Ed was a natural and successful businessman, founding several businesses that made Cernic a brand name throughout the region. He was proud to be able to create jobs in his community. He was a major force in local and State politics and a dedicated champion for transportation and infrastructure projects in Cambria County. In a region that has faced many challenges, he was a man of action who courageously fought to push the community forward. Though well-known for his friendships with Democratic public officials and political candidates, Ed never hesitated to reach across the aisle to help the community and was highly respected by members of both parties. Ed served as chairman of the Greater Johnstown Water Authority and commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Transportation Commission. He participated in many other local nonprofit and charitable organizations. Ed's impact on his community is most evident at his famous, annual summer picnic at Cernic's Picnic Grove. Ed had a unique ability to gather people from far and wide--elected officials, political candidates, business leaders, and community leaders--to celebrate and show their support for the people of Cambria County. This yearly gathering exemplifies Ed's contributions to the State and local community, as well as what he valued most: family, friends, and his beloved hometown. Ed's legacy will endure in the jobs he created, the communities he supported, and the people he served. Johnstown and Cambria County had no stronger champion. As a Pennsylvanian and as a friend of Ed and his family, I will miss his generous spirit and his passion for helping the people of his home county. We extend our condolences to Ed Cernic, Jr., and the Cernic family.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to talk about Syria and all of the horrors we have been seeing over not just months but years. Many people around this Nation, as well as people in the international community--whether they are in refugee camps in Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon, or in bombed-out neighborhoods in Damascus, Aleppo, and Homs--so many people across the country and across the world are wondering, what will President Trump do next in Syria? Are we any closer to a resolution of this terrible conflict that will allow the Syrian people to rebuild their lives? More than 7 years have passed since the Syrian people first began protesting the Assad regime's brutal rule, and that may be a terrible understatement. The ongoing conflict continues to have an impact on U.S. national security interests. In these 7 years, almost 500,000 Syrians have been killed--half a million Syrians killed--and more than 12 million have been displaced from their homes. Sometimes that means they leave their homes and go to another community or another place within Syria, but of course many--maybe even most--have gone to another country. It is hard to comprehend that because that is a little more than half of the population of Syria. Imagine if half of more than 300 million Americans were forced to leave their homes because of a war, because of bombings, because of the brutality of a regime. That is what has happened in Syria. Half the population has been displaced, and half a million have been killed. This is a conflict that began rather modestly but courageously. A group of young people scrawled graffiti on the walls of local buildings in protest of their own government's repressive policies. This was in the context of a movement of young people across the region--meaning the Middle East--standing up against autocratic governance. The Syrian regime cracked down brutally, and of course we all know that the conflict escalated from there. I remind my colleagues of the genesis of this conflict because so much has happened over the last 7 years, and the path toward a resolution remains unclear. I have said before and will say again today that I believe, as most analysts do, that there is no purely military solution to the conflict in Syria. Although the Russian and Iranian influence has always been present in Damascus, it has grown exponentially as the United States has ceded its leadership role on this issue. Beginning with the Obama administration, I have urged the executive branch to articulate a clear policy toward Syria, to empower our diplomatic and defense officials to demonstrate U.S. leadership on this issue, and to resist ceding our regional influence to adversaries like Russia and Iran. We cannot afford to ignore the carnage in Syria at the hands of the Assad regime and their backers--namely, of course, the Iranians and the Russians. U.S. vision and leadership are needed. Following the illegal, immoral, and appalling gas attack that killed more than 80 civilians in April 2017, the U.S. military executed standoff airstrikes against Syrian regime military targets. That was a proportional response to a heinous attack on civilians, but I also encouraged the administration at the time to develop a comprehensive plan to address the Syria conflict. Then nothing happened--well, I guess not nothing. In the year since then, the President has disempowered and now replaced Secretary of State Tillerson, failed to take decisive action in implementing sanctions on Russian entities enacted by overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate, and he has continued to confuse our allies with his policymaking-by-tweet. This week, I attended a briefing on this issue conducted by a number of administration officials, principally by Secretary Mattis. I was impressed with his goal of developing a cohesive Syria strategy; however, I remain concerned that no clear strategy has yet emerged to promote U.S. national security interests in the region, to advance the national security of our allies, such as Israel, or to protect the innocent Syrians being targeted by their own government. This lack of a consistent and considered strategy has given Bashar al-Assad the political space to continue to commit war crimes--and that is what they are, war crimes. Just one day after President Trump announced--again on Twitter--that the United States would soon be withdrawing from Syria, Assad's forces committed another heinous chemical weapons attack on a town that had already been suffering under siege by the Russian-backed Syrian Army. At least 56 civilians were killed in 24 hours. Now, of course, we all know that last week, the United States, the United Kingdom, and France responded with missile strikes against three Syrian chemical weapons development and storage facilities. But we have not heard what the administration plans to do next to work with our allies and partners on the humanitarian and political aspects of this conflict. Over the last several years, Russian, Iranian, and Turkish leaders have met to discuss the future of Syria. We all saw that picture of Mr. Ruhani, Mr. Erdogan, and Mr. Putin--three of our government's adversaries. Sometimes we work with them, but on most days, at least two of the three--the Russian and Iranian leaders--are adversaries. Certainly Mr. Erdogan has been back and forth between being an adversary and having an alliance with us on some issues. That picture was very disturbing. Are we going to allow those three to dictate policy not just in Syria but in the Middle East? Those three? I don't think so. I don't think that is what American policy should be. By failing to engage in these negotiations, the United States has ceded control of the outcomes to states with national interests often in direct conflict with our own. The Russian Government has made clear that they believe that all Syrian territory must return to the Assad regime's control before political reforms can be considered. The Iranian regime has made clear that their objective is to remain in control of territory--either directly or through proxies--from Tehran to Beirut. This is unacceptable. Assad's continued presence in Damascus is and will remain a recruiting tool for terrorists in the region. His regime allowed organizations like ISIS to grow and metastasize while Iranian forces have supplied tens of millions of arms to Hezbollah fighters who pose a clear threat to Israel. At different points during the last 15 months, we have heard many conflicting reports of this administration's Syria policy. At one point, the administration said it would endorse a transition plan that would leave Bashar al-Assad in power for at least another 4 years. At another point, Secretary Tillerson said the United States would retain a long-term military presence in Syria for combat operations, surge ``stabilization'' assistance to opposition-controlled areas, and ``rally the Syrian people and individuals within the regime to compel Assad to step down.'' We have also seen the President say that we are withdrawing from Syria and, most recently, conflicting reports on whether the United States will levy new sanctions on the Russian entities that enable and support the murderous Assad regime. So there have been a lot of mixed signals by different officials over the course of these 15 months since the administration started. Meanwhile, our Russian and Iranian adversaries have been clear and consistent in their policies: Protect their Syrian puppet, Bashar al- Assad, as long as it is politically expedient. The Russians and Iranians don't give a damn about the Syrian people or regional stability. In fact, instability serves their interest. They fuel and feed the regime. They advise and equip Assad's army and security forces and, in the case of Russia, block the United Nations from holding the regime accountable. The continued political turmoil in Damascus coupled with continued besiegement of the Syrian people will lead to long-term instability in Syria. The U.S. military should be commended for its leadership in the international coalition fight against ISIS and for supporting local and regional forces in retaking Iraqi and Syrian territory from terrorist control. CENTCOM commander General Votel testified in March of 2017, and these are important words that he spoke: We will defeat ISIS militarily; however, a lasting defeat of this enemy will not be achieved unless similar progress is made on the political front. Instability all but guarantees a resurgence of ISIS or the emergence of other terrorist groups seeking to exploit conditions to advance their own aims. So said the CENTCOM commander, and we should listen to his words and take action in accordance with those words. The administration must continue to lead the international community in humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people and accelerate support for programs that promote good governance, rule of law, and basic service provision in communities liberated from ISIS control. While we believe partners in the region should also contribute more generously, we should lead by example by robustly funding relevant accounts in the fiscal 2019 budget. I am also thankful for the brave Americans who have volunteered their skills and their time to help the people of Syria survive--literally survive. I thank, in particular, the Syrian American Medical Society, doctors and aid workers who deliver assistance to displaced Syrians and to those who have remained within their borders. These courageous volunteers have stepped in to fill the gaps left by the international community and--I have to say--risking their own lives virtually every minute they are on the ground. More than 7 years since the conflict began, the situation in Syria remains critical and U.S. leadership is needed more than ever. Although I, too, expressed concern with President Obama's Syrian strategy, a year and a half into the Trump Presidency, it is no longer sufficient to blame the previous administration. I urge President Trump to present a strategy for Syria that protects American national security interests in the region, pushes back against Iranian and Russian influence and aggression, and, finally, empowers the Syrian people in their pursuit of a stable, secure, and prosperous future for their country. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

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

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I wish to extend my support for the State of Israel in commemoration of the 70th anniversary of its founding. Since its independence in 1948, Israel's promotion of democratic values has helped forge a thriving society and represents freedom in a region where that value is all too scarce. From its outset, Israel has faced a myriad of challenges, which it has navigated successfully and against all odds. Israel continues to remain America's strongest ally in the Middle East, as well as a central pillar of our strategy to achieve peace and stability in the region. Once again, I want to extend my warmest congratulations to the State of Israel on its 70th anniversary.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I wish to recognize Scipio White for his service to our Nation, the Commonwealth, and to the Monessen community in Pennsylvania. In 1941, Scipio entered the Army to defend our Nation during WWII. He was recognized early on for his leadership skills and his ability to interact with individuals of all backgrounds. Upon completing officer training school, Scipio was commissioned lieutenant. He became one of the first African Americans to serve as a field officer during WWII. After the war concluded, Scipio continued his military career as an Army Reservist, eventually securing the rank of major. He served as branch president and vice president of his local Reserve Officers Association and is also active with the Military Officers Association of America. Returning to Pennsylvania, Scipio continued his government service with the Post Office for 41 years. During that time, he completed a business degree from Douglas Business School in Monessen. Additionally, he was a board member of the Mon Valley Community Health Center during its inception and served on the board of the Washington County Postal Credit Union. Today Scipio's devotion to the community remains evident. He actively works with the Monessen Clean Air Coalition to promote smoking cessation and remains a long-term member of the NAACP. For more than 50 years, he has worked with the Mon Yough Lodge No. 79 and is a 32 Sublime Prince with the St. Cyprian Consistory No. 4 in Pittsburgh, PA. I commend Scipio White for his life of service and leadership on behalf of the Nation, the Commonwealth, and the residents of Monessen, PA.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Dr. William Tucker as he celebrates his 90th birthday. Bill is an entrepreneur and former government official and presently serves as president of Penn Century Corporation. In 1951, Bill married the Honorable C. Delores Tucker, who later went on to become the first African-American woman to serve as Pennsylvania's Secretary of State. As a young man, Bill proudly served in the U.S. Army from 1951 to 1953. Shortly after, he attended Lincoln University where he graduated in 1960 with a bachelor of arts degree. In May 2011, he received an honorary doctorate in humane letters from Lincoln University. Before retiring from government service in 1991, Bill served as a confidential assistant to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce during the Carter administration and later served as associate director of the U.S. Department of Commerce's Office of Business Liaison, working as an assistant to the secretary. Bill provided years of invaluable service to the Department and embodied what it means to be a public servant. Bill went on to become vice chair of the Bethune DuBois Institute, and it was in this role that he founded the annual Children's Christmas Dinner Party for disadvantaged children, first held in Washington, DC. In 2004, through the Philadelphia Martin Luther King, Jr. Association for Nonviolence, Inc., he orchestrated the first Annual Children's Christmas Dinner Party for underserved children from the Philadelphia and surrounding areas at the Wyndham Franklin Plaza Hotel, which serviced over 3,800 children that year. As a committed community activist, Bill has dedicated his life to defending others. He has served as president of the Associated Real Estate Brokers of Philadelphia and a board member of the National Negro Business League, the Urban League of Philadelphia, the Philadelphia Chapter NAACP, and many others. His commitment to helping shape his community has been an inspiration to us all. Bill set the prime example of leadership and courage during his life. His activism and many years of community and public service are significant to many who have been touched by his work. I wish Bill a happy 90th birthday and express my gratitude for all the work he has done.