Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to talk about an issue we have talked about a lot in Washington but frankly haven't done enough about, and that is gun violence. In the next number of hours-- certainly all day Saturday--we are going have demonstrations across the country. Young people will be going into local communities, as well as coming to Washington, to march on behalf of those whose lives have been lost and to urge us to take action. The exact name of the effort being undertaken is March for Our Lives. We have never seen on this issue-- and maybe any other issue--this kind of intense activism that young people have undertaken across the country. This march on Saturday, March for Our Lives, will be unprecedented in recent American history. I am going to be in the city of Philadelphia, and I know some people will be marching in Washington, as well as in communities across the country. The focus of the work of young people across the country--starting with the students in Parkland, FL, but growing all across the country in these many weeks--will be taking action, demanding that the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House, and any other legislative body that can have an impact on this should take action. That is what they are demanding. I think there are a number of folks in Washington who have wanted to take action for years. I hope, in response to that activism, in response to those marches, when we come back after our break--and I hope days and weeks after that--that there will be a response here in the Senate and that we will debate the issue or debate one amendment or one bill and then vote on it, and then take the next bill and vote on that, and keep going until we have a number of votes. It doesn't mean that we can be certain of the outcome. In my judgment, the reason to have a vote is to make sure that the American people see us debating this issue and voting on it. Otherwise, to take no action, to simply say that there is nothing we can do about a uniquely American problem--the other option of course is to surrender, to say that gun violence is just part of American life, we have to get used to it, there is nothing we can do about it, and surrender to the problem. I think most Americans don't want to keep reading that number of deaths that pile up every year. At last count, there were 33,000 gun deaths in 1 year. I don't think many Americans want to settle for that. That is not the America I know. That is not the America most people know. In America, we take action on tough issues. We tackle them or try to tackle them. We don't surrender to the problem. We don't surrender to one political point of view and say that paralysis leads to no solution. That is not American. Back in December of 2012, when Sandy Hook Elementary School was the scene of the kind of horror and carnage that we have rarely seen in American history, there also was that predisposition to just move on and do nothing, to say there is nothing we can do. I was confronted with those questions that same weekend because I knew, in the months ahead, there would be a series of votes. There turned out to be a vote on background checks, a vote on the limitation of high-capacity magazines--in essence, how many bullets can an individual shoot at any one time. That is the reason for the mass casualties. That is the reason we have so many people who die in school shootings or in movie theaters or in nightclubs or in so many other settings, and, most recently, in yet another school. The third vote, of course, was a vote to ban military-style assault weapons. Knowing I would be facing those votes, which turned out to be in the early part of 2013, I had to ask myself a basic question, and I think this is a question a lot of Americans are asking at times like this: Is there nothing the most powerful country in the world, the most powerful country in the history of the human race, could do to at least reduce the likelihood that we will not have more mass shootings, we will not have more school shootings, we will not go year after year, after 33,000 people lost their lives from gunshot wounds--a number that is likely to grow if we don't take action. That is the choice: Do almost nothing, nothing itself, or take action. That is the fundamental choice we face. That is why we need votes and debates preceding those votes. It is hard to comprehend that it has been half a decade--5 years-- since we had a sustained debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate on gun violence. We have had intermittent debates. We have had limited discussions. We have had some speeches. I guess all of that is helpful, but we have had no sustained debate on one of the major issues facing the American people. They don't expect us to solve this problem in a couple of days or weeks, but they do expect us to vote, and they expect us to debate. After 5 years, it is about time we had a sustained debate. Many of us receive letters on a range of issues, depending on what the issue of the week is or the issue of the month is. I recently received mail in a form we don't see enough of anymore--postcards. These were written by students and individuals too young to even be referred to as students. Here is one that is only age 5. His name is Corey. He said in his note to me that he doesn't want to have guns in his school, and he wants me to do something about it. It goes on from there in the short note, and he attached some artwork in the back. That is what Corey said; he doesn't want to have guns in school. Then there is Mason, who wrote to me and said: I want to feel safe in school. There should not be guns in my school. He goes on to talk about what he is worried about. He said: ``I want to feel safe in school.'' Then, finally, probably the one who summed up these issues the best was a young man by the name of Hayden. He wrote to me and said: I am a 5th grader and I don't feel safe because it is too easy to get a gun permit. I should not know about this stuff. I don't feel safe. Then he ended with this question: ``Am I worth it?'' Then Hayden asked again: ``Am I worth it?'' He asked that twice in a postcard where he is just writing a few sentences. Then he put a heart on the other side. In a few sentences, Hayden is summing up the challenge we face in the Senate and across the country. He said twice in the same letter: ``I do not feel safe. . . . I don't feel safe''--something probably most people my age or in my generation, so to speak, never had to worry about. We didn't think of going to school and being threatened by gun violence. There might have been anxiety in school, there might have been things we were worried about, but this wasn't one of them. This is new, and this was a uniquely American problem. No other country in the world faces this kind of a problem. We have to ask ourselves if a young person in fifth grade doesn't feel safe because of these mass shootings, and mass shootings in school, and then asks us, ``Am I worth it,'' every one of us in both parties should say: Of course, you are worth it, Hayden. Hayden is worth the effort to try to keep him safe in school. If the answer to that question is yes, that he is worth us doing something about it, then you have to ask the question, What am I going to do about it? Are we just going to do what we usually do around here, just don't vote, don't have any sustained debate, and pretend it is not happening because there are forces out there that have a stranglehold on the process that say: You are not even allowed to vote, let alone debate and pass a bill. There are forces out there that don't even want us to debate the issue, but I think we can do more to respond to Hayden's request and, of course, respond to what young people across the country are demanding. You have young people who are not old enough to vote yet--and I am not just talking about Hayden and his postcard but all those young people who are coming to Washington and going to town squares in small towns and big cities to march for their lives. Many of them are not 18 years old yet. They can't vote, and they are leading the country, suggesting to us how to vote, demanding that we take action. It is rather ironic that this problem has gotten so bad that young people who still cannot cast a vote are asking us to do our jobs and to vote. It is not difficult to vote in the U.S. Senate. Usually, you just have to be standing and put your hand up or thumb up or some indication to the individuals in the Senate who record those votes. It is not that difficult. It doesn't require a lot of exertion. It doesn't require a lot of energy. You just have to be on the floor, be standing, and say yes or no. If someone wants to vote against all these gun measures, if they want to vote against background checks and limitation on the high- capacity magazines and still let what we have in American law now, which is a terrorist can get a gun in America--if you want to continue that, fine. That is your choice. That is your choice, but at least vote. At least have the sense of responsibility to vote on a tough issue. We will have an opportunity to answer the postcard and answer the question Hayden asked--is he worth it? I think he is, and I think we ought to vote. Developmental Disabilities Awareness Month Mr. President, I will be brief. I just want to note one of the recognitions of this month. I want to take a moment and remind everyone that March is Developmental Disabilities Awareness Month. In 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that 14 percent of children in the United States have a developmental disability; that is, almost 10 million children. Developmental disabilities include autism, Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, learning disabilities, and many other congenital disabilities. In the past, we took a rather paternalistic point of view with regard to people with developmental disabilities--taking care of them but not raising them up and fostering their skills and abilities. This was shortsighted on our part. Today, with the help of such laws as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act--we heard a lot about that referred to by its acronym, IDEA--the Americans with Disabilities Act, so-called ADA, and then my legislation from a couple of years ago, the ABLE Act, each of these pieces of legislation are breaking down barriers to encourage and support people with developmental and all types of disabilities. People with developmental disabilities contribute numerous benefits to our society. In Pennsylvania, thousands of people with developmental disabilities are working in competitive, integrated jobs at such places as SAP, FedEx Ground, PNC Bank, Giant Eagle grocery stores, and many small businesses throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. People with developmental disabilities make our lives richer and fuller. As we celebrate them, I pledge--I know this is a pledge many in the Senate make--to protect their rights and the rights of all people with disabilities to have equal access to all of our society. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Liz Weintraub of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's proceedings.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I wanted to pay tribute to my colleague Thad Cochran as he retires from the Senate after almost 40 years of service. Former Senator Margaret Chase Smith once said, ``Public service must be more than doing a job efficiently and honestly. It must be complete dedication to the people and the nation.'' Senator Thad Cochran brought that dedication to the Senate every day. During his tenure, Senator Cochran has served as chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee, using those positions to help the people of Mississippi. The Senator's commitment to help alleviate the poverty in the Mississippi delta is well documented. As Senator Cochran ends this chapter of his life, I wish him well and thank him for the decency and courtesy that he consistently brought to the Senate. We are better for it.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today as Syria is about to enter its eighth year of conflict. We have witnessed 7 years of displacement and violence, 7 years of war crimes, and 7 years of Bashar al-Assad's illegitimate grasp on power. To say that it is past time for Assad to go or that it is past time for the conflict to be resolved dramatically underestimates the horrible suffering and destruction the people of Syria have experienced. In these 7 years, almost 500,000 Syrians have been killed and more than 12 million have been displaced from their homes. This conflict has disproportionately affected children, as all conflicts do. According to Save the Children, inside Syria, 7.5 million children have lived their whole lives knowing nothing but war. Emotional and psychological stress has manifested itself physically; Syrian children now face an increase in heart disease, diabetes, and depression. These children are growing up in refugee camps, with no end in sight. This means the loss of their childhood and of educational opportunities. I don't exaggerate when I say that because of this war, an entire generation of Syrians will be both displaced and disaffected in an already volatile region. Ignoring these children ensures decades of instability to come. In Eastern Ghouta this past week, we saw the most recent example of the brutality of the Assad regime, aided and abetted by Russia and Iran. While only just now making headlines, Eastern Ghouta has been held under siege by the Syrian Government since 2013. This neighborhood, which had supposedly been designated as a deescalation zone, has been bombarded by Syrian Government forces armed with Russian weapons. In just a few days, 500 civilians have been killed, and that number is growing. Years after the international community reached a consensus that Assad had lost his legitimacy as the leader of Syria, he not only remains in power but is more secure than ever. The United States has not only failed to exert moral leadership in the face of Syrian suffering but has also failed to show strategic leadership in the face of a tangible threat to U.S. national security. I have long called on both the Obama and Trump administrations, warning that U.S. interests were not being represented in Syrian negotiations, but this has never been more clearly illustrated than in November of this past year, November of 2017, when a picture circulated of Presidents Ruhani, Putin, and Erdogan shaking hands in Russia after a round of negotiations to determine a potential resolution of the Syrian conflict. I have to ask, is it now U.S. policy to let these three dictate policy in the Middle East--Ruhani, Putin, and Erdogan? The United States was not there, nor were our European allies. The United States is failing our own interests by ceding leadership in Syria to Iran and Russia, whose national security interests often directly contradict our own. What do these bullying regimes want from Syria? Let's start with Iran. Iran sees Syria as an investment in its political infrastructure and its campaign for regional hegemony. It is their ``land bridge'' from Tehran to Beirut, a weapons pipeline, a training camp for Hezbollah. It is a practice ground for a future war with Israel. What about the Russians? The Russian Government, led by Mr. Putin, has made clear that they believe all Syrian territory must return to the Assad regime and to the Assad regime's control before political reforms can be considered. Putin seeks a solution that shows that he is the arbiter of events in the Middle East. Lately, foreign leaders-- including Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel, President Ruhani, and King Salman of Saudi Arabia--fly to Moscow instead of Washington. They see a Russia that seeks to write the rules of international order and an America that sits back, too enmeshed in our own political strife to lead. This is not the America that I know and that most Americans know. The America I know does not believe that where you are born should dictate where you live or die or if you spend your childhood in a refugee camp. The America I know does not stand by while enemy nations threaten to expand their spheres of influence. The America I know sees the complexity of our own foreign involvements, understanding, for instance, that ISIS cannot be fully defeated without considering the context of the Syrian civil war. The America I know supports its allies, like Israel, that share a chaotic border with a nation at war with itself. In 1963, President John F. Kennedy spoke at the Fort Worth, TX, Chamber of Commerce on the challenges posed by the Soviet regime. He said: This country, which desires only to be free, which desires to be secure, which desired to live at peace for 18 years under three different administrations, has borne more than its share of the burden, has stood watch for more than its number of years. I don't think we are fatigued or tired. We would like to live as we once lived. But history will not permit it. . . . The balance of power is still on the side of freedom. We are still the keystone in the arch of freedom, and I think we will continue to do as we have done in our past, our duty. So said President Kennedy. He spoke to the paradox of our country then and now, what we continue to face. If we are to remain the keystone in the arch of freedom, we cannot become fatigued by the responsibility to fight tyranny. These are the very issues that should receive public debate as part of the congressional consideration of a new authorization for the use of military force, known by the acronym AUMF. We undermine our own credibility when we continue to send our men and women into conflicts that Congress has not authorized. Secretary Tillerson, our Secretary of State, has indicated that he sees a need for a long-term U.S. military presence in Syria; yet many of us believe that there is no purely military solution to this conflict. Where is the strategy? we ask. I would like to see the administration put forward a plan that encompasses all components of this conflict--military, political, and humanitarian. When we ask our men and women in uniform to put their lives on the line to protect our homeland and fight terrorism, we need to be willing to back them up by doing our jobs here in Washington. Just consider Pennsylvania. Pennsylvanians have made a substantial sacrifice in the past 17 years of war as 288 of our brave servicemembers have been killed in action in those 17 years and as almost 2,000 have been wounded in action in Afghanistan and Iraq. We owe it to these men and women to have a robust, bipartisan debate about this strategy and a vote on an AUMF. We should also vote on legislation to cut off financing for ISIS or any other terrorist organization in the world. I have a bipartisan bill, the Stop Terrorists Operational Resources and Money Act, the so-called STORM Act, with Senator Isakson. I have a bill, as well, with Senator Rubio, the Preventing Destabilization of Iraq and Syria Act, to promote humanitarian aid and sanction the Russian and Iranian actors who are destabilizing this region--all of the components of a comprehensive strategy. Let's have a serious debate on this critical national security issue. We are not always faced with situations in which our moral obligation and our strategic priorities lead to the same conclusion, but this is one of those rare moments. May it be said of us years from now, just as President Kennedy said, that we do our duty to continue to be the keystone in the arch of freedom, including helping the Syrian people, especially her children, be free of Assad's brutality and bombing.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I restate my support for the investigations by Robert Mueller into Russia's election interference, as well as to condemn the partisan attacks on the independent investigation being led by Robert Mueller, who has been an honorable public servant over many decades. In 2016, our Nation came under attack by a hostile foreign power. Everyone knows that now. Our election process--the bedrock of our system of government--was targeted by Russian agents. They used a variety of measures to pursue their goals. 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. That is from the unclassified report of our intelligence community. These brazen and illegal actions have already resulted in the indictments of 13 Russian individuals and three Russian companies as part of Special Counsel Mueller's investigation. Russia may not have used traditional military force against us, but the actions they took present just as serious a threat to our national security. Make no mistake, when a foreign adversary targets an American election, it has targeted America, itself. Yet the President, whose own campaign is being examined as part of the Russia investigation, has refused to enforce sanctions against Russia. He has refused to fight back against Putin and his regime, despite there being clear evidence that they attacked us. The President's failure to take action against Russia underscores the urgent need for Special Counsel Mueller's independent investigation to continue unfettered. In this investigation, Mr. Mueller has already amassed enough evidence to have a grand jury indict Russian operatives and high- ranking members of the Trump campaign, including former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and deputy campaign manager Rick Gates. Other Trump advisers, like Mr. Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn, have pled guilty to Federal crimes. Unfortunately, as this evidence has come forward, unwarranted, dangerous, and partisan attacks on Mr. Mueller's investigation and on Mr. Mueller, himself, have accelerated; yet a brief glance at Mr. Mueller's lifetime of service reflects his commitment to serving the American people with honor, integrity, and courage that, I think, is unmatched by anyone I know in Washington. Here are a couple of examples. As a young man, Mr. Mueller served with distinction in the Vietnam war and was awarded a Bronze Star, two Navy Commendation Medals, the Purple Heart, and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry for his leadership and exemplary service. Mr. Mueller received the Bronze Star for his ``heroic achievement'' after leading his fellow marines through an 8-hour battle, where, under enemy fire, ``Second Lieutenant Mueller fearlessly moved from one position to another, directing the accurate counterfire of his men and shouting words of encouragement to them. . . . [H]e then skillfully supervised the evacuation of casualties from the hazardous fire area.'' After that battle, he was promoted to first lieutenant. Just 4 months later, he sustained a bullet wound when he responded to an ambush by enemy forces on marines who were in his command. For his heroic response, Mr. Mueller received the Navy Commendation Medal with a citation praising him for rushing to save his fellow marines while ``completely disregarding his own safety.'' I will give a recitation of some of the record that Special Counsel Mueller developed long before he was named to this position. I was going through his actions as a marine in combat, and I have a few more parts of his record to review. Mr. Mueller not only fought courageously on the battlefield, but upon returning home earned his law degree. He continued serving his country throughout his legal career. After serving in U.S. attorney's offices in both Boston and San Francisco for over a decade, he later served at the Justice Department leading the Criminal Division of the Justice Department under President George H.W. Bush. There he oversaw cases ranging from the prosecution of the Panamanian dictator, Manuel Noriega, to the Lockerbie bombing. In 1995, Mr. Mueller left a high-paying position in the private sector to join the DC U.S. attorney's office--in this case, the Homicide Division--working to hold violent offenders accountable for their crimes. Three years later, he became a U.S. attorney himself, serving again in San Francisco and earning a reputation as a dogged and fair prosecutor committed to enforcing the rule of law. In 2001, Mr. Mueller was nominated by a second Republican President, President George W. Bush, to be the Director of the FBI. He was then confirmed unanimously by this body. His tenure at the FBI included leading the response to the September 11 attacks, spearheading the Bureau's efforts to combat cyber crime, which has been widely praised. In fact, in 2011, when his 10-year term was scheduled to end, we in the Senate voted 100 to 0 to extend his term as FBI Director through 2013, another 10 years. Though our political system has become more polarized, each time Mr. Mueller has been named or nominated for a new position, he has received unqualified praise from people across the political spectrum and rightly so. With Mr. Mueller's record as a war hero, a dedicated public servant, and an expert in law enforcement, it is hard to imagine anyone better suited to lead the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. There is no one in Washington, DC, or, frankly, in all of America better prepared to do this job. Serious congressional oversight of executive branch operations is always appropriate. However, the reckless partisan attacks on Mr. Mueller's investigation and on Mr. Mueller himself are not the same as congressional oversight. Such attacks have made us less safe as a nation. The political smears like those we have seen undermine our rule of law and strike at the heart of our democracy. They are a disservice to the brave men and women in law enforcement who put their lives on the line to keep all of us safe. As Members of the U.S. Congress, we have a duty to uphold the rule of law and the principles of fairness and independence that American democracy is built upon. I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to defend the integrity of Mr. Mueller's investigation and reject the politically motivated attempts to discredit the investigation and its underlying conclusions. I call on the House and Senate majority to give us a vote on legislation to protect Special Counsel Mueller's independence and ensure that he can continue his investigation free from interference. To ensure the integrity of our elections and our democracy, we must make sure we never allow a hostile foreign power to interfere in our electoral process again, and to do that we must allow the special counsel to get to the bottom of what Russia did in 2016 and whether it was aided by American individuals. That is what the whole investigation is about--those two parts. History, of course, will be our judge. We will be judged about how we handled this crisis. We know that in 1787, when the Constitutional Convention had just adjourned, Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of government the Convention had chosen for our young nation. He responded that the Convention has given us ``[a] Republic, if you can keep it.'' Democratic principles are only as strong as those elected to uphold them. I hope my colleagues will stand together and stand strong to preserve the rule of law and the institutions of this Republic we have been given, and we must ``keep it,'' as Franklin said. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon--and I know I will be joined by a number of my colleagues on the floor--to talk about gun violence and to talk about what happened most recently and tragically in the State of Florida. I hope we can cover a number of aspects of this challenge, but I wanted to start with the victims who were killed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on February 14. I will make reference to the individuals more specifically a little later, but we are remembering them today. We are thinking of their families and certainly thinking as well of the surviving students. We are praying for the families, the victims, and the survivors. I can't imagine what these families are dealing with right now just days after this tragedy. There are a lot of ways to express grief, a lot of ways to somehow articulate the loss. I can't do it adequately, so I will turn to, in this case, a songwriter, recording artist Bruce Springsteen. We all know a good bit of his music, but years ago, after 9/11, he wrote the lyrics to a song which was entitled, ``You're Missing.'' Of course, it has application for those who have loved and lost, especially in this instance, so tragically. Bruce Springsteen's words go, in part, like this, and the refrain of the song is ``You're missing.'' At one point he says: You're missing when I shut out the lights You're missing, when I close my eyes You're missing, when I see the sun rise He is giving us a sense of the loss--all day, every day, all night, every night--for that family member. He was speaking and reflecting upon the losses of 9/11, but anyone who has lost a loved one, especially this way--in this case, victims of murder in the school--must be thinking the same about what is missing in their lives and who is missing in their life, whether it is a son, a daughter, or another loved one. Gun violence in our country is all too common. It is almost hard to comprehend how common it has become, and unfortunately it is all too common not just for our country but especially for the younger generation. I will not provide lines of demarcation, but a lot of young people have known little else in their young lives but reading about or seeing on television stories about gun violence or being in the midst of an act of gun violence. At least hundreds of Americans have been in schools that have been the site of gun violence in the last 20 years or so. What we ought to do here is, in addition to giving speeches and pointing out where we should go--that is helpful, I guess, but the most important thing the Senate can do is to debate and vote. It would be ideal if we would debate one bill and then vote on it, then have another debate on another bill and vote on that, and do that again and again and see where we end up. I think most people here would be willing to do that even if we knew the result, even if you could prove to us that this particular measure will not pass or this one will be close or that one might pass. Whatever the circumstance, we should debate this issue. This institution is supposed to be all about open debate on the issues of the day. That is what I think that not only young people across the country but people of all ages are expecting of us. They expect us to debate and vote and keep trying to pass a measure that might reduce or maybe even substantially reduce the likelihood of further gun violence in schools and all other kinds of places in our society. Of course, we are thinking particularly about schools, where students should have a reasonable but sometimes cannot be sure of a reasonable expectation of security. I can't imagine this as a student. In all the years I was in school, we never even thought about this as a reality in our lives. People my age probably never thought about it for 1 minute. People who grew up in the 1960s or 1970s or 1980s never thought about this. It is only in the last generation or so that students have had to worry about and think about and unfortunately, for some, experience this kind of violence. I was a teacher for 1 year. I was a volunteer in North Philadelphia in a fifth grade classroom. I only taught for a year and knew I would only be teaching for a year of volunteer work, but I never thought about this. I can't imagine what I would do even if I had some training in law enforcement. Even if I had some training in how to handle a weapon, I can't imagine having to defend a classroom against this kind of killer with a high-powered weapon, where he can shoot bullets, one after another, into a classroom. I can't even imagine, and most people can't imagine. Schools are supposed to be places of teaching, of learning, of friendship, of competition, and of engagement with all kinds of activities in a school. Of course, schools are supposed to be places of growth, where young people start high school or grade school--high school for 4 years, grade school for longer--come through that, and grow into the kind of person their families hope they will be. Schools should not be places of fear and trepidation and uncertainty about what might happen in that school. This is not a common thought that students in years past had, that they would go to school and not be safe, that they would go to school and potentially not come home. What has been heartening and inspiring in the aftermath of this tragedy is what young people have done in Parkland in the State of Florida and, frankly, throughout the country. The other day, one of my colleagues said something that made a lot of sense. My colleague made the statement that the Senate is not where the focus of attention is. This Senator said that the focus of attention is on these young people. They are leading. In this case, Congress might have to follow, but we should follow them. They are leading on this. They are showing us the way. Young people are charting a new course on this issue, and they are not going away. They are going to be voting for 50 more years or longer. They are not going away, and this issue won't go away. They are leading us, and we should follow them. They and their families expect us to act. That means debating and voting. It doesn't just mean giving speeches or expressing condolence. Many of us were moved and inspired by their leadership, and we continue to be so inspired. Many of us were moved to tears and outpourings of emotion on all of these tragedies. I will never forget what I was thinking and responding to when it came to the Newtown massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School. That, for me, was a seminal moment in my life in the Senate. That tragedy informed how I would vote going forward. That tragedy moved me to take a different approach to these issues and, frankly, to vote a different way. Starting in 2012 and 2013, in the aftermath of that tragedy, the one question I had to ask myself at the time--and I think we are still asking ourselves tragedy after tragedy--is there no action Congress can take that will substantially reduce the likelihood of gun violence in a school? Is there no action that the most powerful country in the history of the human race can take to reduce this likelihood? If our answer is no, then I guess that is the way some will vote, and they will move on to other issues. I don't think many Americans believe that. I think most Americans believe there are actions we can take. It won't be one bill or one amendment or one vote, but there are a series of steps we can take over time, and it will take too much time, but we have to start now to consider, debate, and vote on a number of measures. I want to turn to my colleagues in just a moment. In the time after the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy, I was, as many of us were, reading about these young children and the horror in that classroom. I happened to tear out a newspaper page from the Wall Street Journal. These were printed in all kinds of newspapers across the country. You can't see it from a distance, but it is a yellowed copy of that page. It is from the Wall Street Journal dated December 17, 2012, page A6. The inscription above it is ``Shattered Lives.'' It has pictures of the students and pictures of their teachers and others in the school as well. They were all victims of gun violence. I won't go through the stories, but these are powerful stories of their lives. We have to ask ourselves, in the aftermath of that kind of a tragedy--just like the most recent tragedy--are we going to celebrate their lives and tell the world how much they contributed to the life of America but then in the same breath say: But we have to move on to another issue. I don't think that is an American approach. I don't think that is the approach of a great nation, of a great people. When we are at our best, we tackle problems. We know it will take a long time. We know it will take a number of votes and a number of actions. But we have to begin. I think we should begin. In this instance, I am not going to go through all the names or all the names from every tragedy, of course, but let me read just the first names of the victims in Parkland. I know the senior Senator from Florida, because of his concern for these victims and their families and his knowledge of his home State, will go into even more detail. I will read the first names. As we are reading them, we should think about what we can do, what we should do as a people, or should we just do what has been done too many other times and move on? Alyssa, Scott, Martin, Nicholas, Aaron, Jaime, Chris, Luke, Cara, Gina, Joaquin, Alaina, Meadow, Helena, Alex, Carmen, and Peter--17 individuals who are missing in the lives of their family, missing what their classmates are experiencing every day; missing from the lives of those classmates, sometimes their best friends. As the songwriter says, those 17 are missing when they shut out the lights. They are missing when they close their eyes at night. And they are missing when they see the sunrise. We have an obligation. We are dutybound as an institution but maybe more importantly, as a people, to take action. The time is now--maybe not to finish action, but the time is now to take action. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate Black History Month and to pay tribute to a Pennsylvanian who has dedicated her life to public service. Today, we honor former Philadelphia councilwoman Marian Benton Tasco, whose 50-year career in public service has improved the lives of countless people in our State. Throughout her career, Marian Tasco consistently fought for the people of her community. From her first days as a typist working in the city of Philadelphia to the end of her seventh term serving on the city council, Marian Tasco's life has been dedicated to helping people. Today we celebrate Marian's commitment to public service. Born during the days of segregation in Greensboro, NC, Marian Tasco was joyfully raised through the love and care of her mother, Mazie Benton; her great-grandmother, Susie Short; and her grandparents, Alice and Thomas Benton. At an early age, Marian expressed an interest in community service through volunteer activities with the Brownies and Girl Scouts of America. Even as a child, Marian Tasco was inspired to help others. It was at this point in her life that Marian imagined that she would go on to become an educator. With that goal in mind, she began her education at Bennett College, a historically Black liberal arts college for women, which is located in Greensboro. Marian worked during the summers to pay for her tuition. After 2 years, Marian had to leave Bennett when she could no longer afford to pay the cost of tuition. Later in life, Marian would return to Bennett College as a member of the board of trustees and actively work to support the growth of the college. After leaving Bennett, Marian Tasco moved to Philadelphia to be with her family and to continue her education at Temple University. Again working to pay her way through school, she attended classes at night until her graduation. While she maintained a strong interest in serving others, she decided that, rather than education, politics and government would be her venue for service. In 1959, Marian began her work for the city of Philadelphia as a clerk typist I in the Philadelphia Police Department's Pawn Brokers Division. As a result of her diligent work, not long thereafter, she was promoted to clerk typist II. In this new role, she was reassigned to the registrar's office of the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Like many others who have served the public, Marian Tasco's story in politics began on the frontlines of the community--the community she would later go on to serve. Under the leadership of a distinguished lawyer, Charles Bowser, Marian served as a task force coordinator for the Greater Philadelphia Urban Affairs Coalition. This is an organization that she continues to serve today as a board member. One of Marian's greatest accomplishments was the creation of a youth-focused summer work program that still exists today. Her experience at the Urban Affairs Coalition affirmed her interest in public affairs and community outreach and helped increase her understanding of the needs of the African-American community in Philadelphia. As her career progressed and new opportunities emerged, Marian Tasco remained committed to the path of service. Following her work as an assistant to the former secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, C. Delores Tucker, Marian brought her passion for service to the office of the late U.S. Congressman William H. Gray III. He also, of course, served as House majority whip and chairman of the Budget Committee. She worked as both campaign manager and director of constituent services for Congressman Gray. Serving with Secretary Tucker and Congressman Gray made Marian Tasco worthy of recognition, but Marian wanted to do more. She decided that with her years of experience in community activism and public service, she would seek elected office. It was at the urging of Marian's mentor, former Representative, City Councilman, and Secretary of Public Welfare John White, Jr., that she made the decision to seek elected office. In 1983, Marian became the first African American elected Philadelphia city commissioner. Instantly, she helped develop voter education and registration programs in the city and worked to grow civic education focusing on Philadelphia's young people. In 1988, Marian began her first term on the Philadelphia City Council as a representative for the ninth district of the city. For over 27 years, she served in a number of communities, including East Oak Lane, West Oak Lane, Mount Airy, Olney, Logan, Lawncrest, and Oxford Circle. She would go on to be reelected seven times and pioneer initiatives to improve the quality of life for Philadelphians young and old. Throughout her tenure in office, Councilwoman Tasco's role continued to grow in responsibility and scope. She eventually rose to serve as Philadelphia City Council's majority leader, as well as majority whip. Marian Tasco has served as ward leader for the 50th Ward of Philadelphia for the last three decades. She was also unanimously elected by the Pennsylvania Democratic State Committee to represent Pennsylvania on the Democratic National Committee. In this DNC role, Councilwoman Tasco's reach grew beyond Philadelphia into the national political arena. She helped institute meaningful change in Philadelphia and literally across the Nation. Among other issues, she worked to fight predatory lending, and her work in that area positively impacted the lives of many Philadelphians. Her commitment to ``protect Americans from unscrupulous dealings of financial institutions'' spanned both Broad Street and Wall Street and helped inspire some of President Barack Obama's work. Her advocacy on this issue dates back to the early 1990s, when she worked with community organizations to alert Philadelphia residents about the potential harm of money offered by loan sharks. In 2004, she briefed then-State Senator Obama on the issue during his campaign for the U.S. Senate. In commemoration of her efforts, President Obama invited Councilwoman Tasco to join him for the signing of the historic Dodd-Frank legislation. Marian Tasco's accomplishments in public office made Philadelphia a better place to live and work, and the people of Pennsylvania's largest city remembered. Her retirement celebrations had over 1,200 attendees, including elected officials, labor leaders, community leaders, clergy, and, of course, constituents--the people she served. Councilwoman Tasco is a beloved figure throughout the city of Philadelphia and beyond. She is beloved by her peers and those she represented as a councilwoman. Marian's work in public service was a shining example for others to follow. Philadelphia mayor and former city council member Jim Kenney and former mayor and councilman Michael Nutter have both cited the councilwoman as a mentor. In fact, Mayor Kenney even noted that Councilwoman Tasco ``raised him'' from the age of 32, when he was a new council member. She also has a proven legacy of recognizing and developing young talent on her own team. Two current members of the Philadelphia City Council, Derrick Green and Cherelle Parker, and the late Judge Brenda Frazier-Clemons all served as members of her staff. Councilwoman Marian Tasco's lifetime of service has been the subject of commendation. She has received a notable list of awards and honors, including an honorary doctorate of laws degree from Lincoln University. Her years of work to improve the city of Philadelphia resulted in a lifetime appointment to the Board of Directors of City Trusts, the Philadelphia Cultural Fund, and the Pennsylvania Convention Center Authority Board, just to name a few. For her advocacy on behalf of behavioral health programs and work to push local healthcare reforms, the former Lindley Court senior living apartments were renamed in her honor. Marian Tasco has spent the better part of her life working to improve her community, and she has inspired the next generation of public servants. As we celebrate this Black History Month, we honor those who have made a real commitment to serve others. Marian Tasco has always honored that commitment. On behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the city of Philadelphia, and all those whose lives have been impacted and inspired by her work, it is my privilege on this day to pay tribute to Marian Tasco, a former member and leader of the City Council of Philadelphia and a devoted public servant who worked her way from clerk typist I to citywide leader with national impact. Well done, Marian. Your adopted city and our Commonwealth are proud of your noble work. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I wish to recognize and honor Reading Terminal Market as it celebrates the 125th anniversary of its founding in Pennsylvania. Reading Terminal Market officially opened on February 22, 1893, under the Reading Railroad Company and is one of the Nation's oldest farmers' markets. The market was a result of the city's consolidation of public markets in the early 19th century due to the mass number of merchants and health hazards that became associated with merchant stalls. Reading Terminal Market opened with approximately 78,000 square feet, including 800 spaces for merchants to sell their goods. The market was prosperous during the Great Depression and World War II due to local farmers coming to the city because of high demand and fair prices. Individuals living in the suburbs could have their groceries delivered for free through the use of the train station. Employees at the Reading Terminal would load carts of groceries onto trains and deliver them to each station as the customer requested. Much of Reading Terminal Market's customer base and services relied on the Reading Railroad Company. When the railroad company failed, the market suffered and experienced financial hardship from the 1960s to the early 1990s. A $30 million investment in infrastructure resuscitated the market, and it has thrived as an economic hub ever since. Today, Reading Terminal Market, housed in a National Historic Landmark building, is home to 80 merchants of all different cultural backgrounds with products ranging from fresh, locally sourced produce, meats, handmade wares, and clothing, to a broad range of ethnic food and global goods. With an estimated 100,000 people experiencing the market on a weekly basis, Reading Terminal Market is one of the most prosperous, public markets in both the Commonwealth and in the Nation. I commend Reading Terminal Market, its employees, and its merchants on the 125th anniversary of its founding. As the market has reached global recognition, I am honored it calls Pennsylvania home. Rich in both diversity and tradition, let it serve as a symbol of culture, history, opportunity, and inspiration for us all.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the issue that we are dealing with on the floor, and I am grateful for this opportunity. I wanted to first of all stress the critical urgency that we act to protect America's Dreamers. The United States is a proud Nation of immigrants. Yet in September the administration insulted our values by announcing a decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, which we know by the acronym DACA. Dreamers are young people who have lived in our country since they were children. They are law-abiding residents who have learned English. They have paid taxes, and they have secured jobs to support themselves and their families. Our government promised them that they would be protected if they came forward, and now the administration, at least so far, has broken that promise. Democrats have been fighting for something on the Dream Act since the administration first announced its decision on DACA more than 5 months ago. We have yet to vote on a single piece of bipartisan legislation to protect Dreamers. I do, however, commend the bipartisan work of a number of my colleagues in both parties who have come to the table to draft legislation that protects Dreamers and secures our border. With hundreds--soon to be thousands--of Dreamers losing protection every day, it is critical that we come together to pass bipartisan legislation that will provide permanent protections for these remarkable young people. Dreamers are deeply integrated into communities across Pennsylvania, as well as in a lot of other States and across our country, of course. Dreamers work as nurses, caring for our families. They work as teachers, educating our children, and as servicemen and servicewomen in our military, working to keep us safe. Take a young Pennsylvania Dreamer whom I met a few months ago--way back, I guess, in September. She was studying to be a nurse. Talking about her own life, she said: All I want to do is heal people. All I want to do is be a nurse. Then she became very upset thinking about whether or not she might have that opportunity because of what had not happened in Washington-- no legislation passed to protect her. Another Dreamer from Lancaster, PA--the Presiding Officer knows that part of our State well--is Audrey Lopez. Audrey was brought to the United States from Peru when she was just 11 years old. Audrey spent most of her childhood in Pennsylvania, and her parents instilled in her the value of hard work and education. Like so many Dreamers, Audrey only learned that she was undocumented when she was applying to college and learned that she did not have a Social Security number. Despite not having access to financial aid, Audrey worked hard, and she graduated from college. After graduation, she took a job in public service working at Church World Services, assisting refugees with resettlement. This past fall, Audrey accepted a nearly full scholarship to American University, where she will obtain a master's degree in international development. Audrey is an American in every way but not on paper. She is continuing to work hard, despite not knowing if she will have a future in the country she calls home. We should be supporting young, hard-working people like Audrey who want to work in the service of others and our Nation. Instead, some, but not all--not all--Republicans are threatening her future--not only her future, but our Nation's future--by making us less safe and, frankly, damaging our economy. Protecting Dreamers is not only the right thing to do, but it is also good for the American economy, and it is in our national security interests. DACA has enabled almost 800,000 young people to grow and thrive in America, including about 5,900 in Pennsylvania. As part of the fabric of our community, these impressive young people, like Audrey, provide an enormous contribution to our society, including paying an estimated $2 billion each year in State and local taxes. By contrast, repealing DACA would amount to a loss of $460.3 billion from the national GDP over the next decade. So if you want to do it by year, it is roughly $46 billion a year for each of the 10 years. In Pennsylvania, ending DACA would result in an annual loss of $357.1 million to the State GDP, according to the Center for American Progress. Currently, about 900 Dreamers are serving in the U.S. military and more than one out of every seven DACA-eligible immigrants has language skills that are currently in short supply in the U.S. military. It makes no sense to remove these Dreamers from a country they call home. I believe it is both wrong and dangerous. The American people overwhelmingly support allowing Dreamers to stay in the United States. It is about time Congress listened to the nearly 80 percent of Americans who want to pass protections for Dreamers, along with increased border security so we can prevent this situation in the future. So it is time for action. We need a real compromise solution that will get 60 votes in the Senate and, of course, 218 votes in the House, and a signature from the President of the United States. While I have advocated in the past for a clean vote on the bipartisan Dream Act, which is what I would prefer, compromise will be critical to ensuring we get something done and sent to the President's desk. In 2013, I and many others--67 other Senators--voted for a bipartisan immigration bill that would have doubled the number of Border Patrol agents. That bill also would have mandated 24-hour surveillance of the border using advanced technology, like drones, and it would have provided a pathway to citizenship for law-abiding immigrants. There are a number of bipartisan proposals to pair Dreamer protections with data-driven, sensible border security that focuses on public safety. I look forward to finally voting on these issues, and I hope my Republican colleagues will continue to work with us to secure our border and ensure that Dreamers like Audrey Lopez have a future they can count on. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to start by commending the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Sullivan, for moving this legislation forward and for his work and the work of his staff over many, many months now. I want to thank our staff, as well, and the staff of Senator Wicker and so many other offices that I will not have an opportunity to name. We are especially grateful for their bipartisan efforts, which every once in a while work around here. I am grateful that Senator Sullivan and his team have put in the amount of time that they have. This legislation is part of broader Coast Guard legislation, the Commercial Vessel Incidental Discharge Act. The so-called C-VIDA Act is critically important to get done this year. As Senator Sullivan mentioned, there is bipartisan support, and we should pass it immediately. When I introduced this legislation back in January of last year, working with Senators Wicker, Sullivan, and others, it was included in the larger Coast Guard Authorization Act. That was passed by the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee in May of 2017. Since that time, we have conducted extensive negotiations with our colleagues--and that may be an understatement--to address important environmental as well as enforcement concerns. This legislation fulfills at least two priorities for Pennsylvania. First, it allows us to be in a position to enact strong environmental protection standards for our waterways in Pennsylvania, and second, it supports our maritime industry. Currently, vessel owners and operators are forced to comply with a patchwork of overly burdensome and confusing Federal and State regulations for vessel ballast water and incidental discharges. This act, the C-VIDA Act, would establish uniform national standards and requirements governing ballast water discharges and other discharges that occur during normal operations of vessels. C-VIDA would provide the maritime industry with a consistent, uniform regulatory structure while ensuring that there are environmental protections in place to protect our Nation's ports and waterways. The national standard in C-VIDA ensures that vessels with the best onboard environmental equipment are calling at our ports. That is critical for Pennsylvania, which has coastal, inland, and Great Lakes vessel traffic. There have been concerns raised about the environmental protections, as I mentioned, in the act and the lack of involvement of the EPA and States in developing and enforcing these protections. Once again, I want to commend the work of the staff. Staff from several offices have worked very hard to address these concerns and to ensure that the EPA is involved, that C-VIDA has strong environmental standards, and that we update and revisit these environmental standards as science evolves. Both ballast water and incidental discharge rules will be developed with the Coast Guard in concurrence with the EPA and in consultation with the States. State-specific incidental discharge standards would remain in place until new Federal regulations are enforced. The original bill eliminated State standards upon the enactment of the legislation. Additionally, States would have coenforcement of these standards with the Coast Guard. If a State believes there should be a more stringent national standard, then the State can submit a petition to the Coast Guard. If that standard is found to be technologically and economically viable, the State standards will become the new national standard. Senators in both parties have been working in good faith and, as we can see, have made substantial changes to the original legislation. We have an opportunity to pass an important bill that vessel owners, operators, and maritime labor all agree on. The maritime industry is exactly at the point where we would want other industry sectors to be, developing good business in a clean environment. They have asked the Senate to enact a long-term regulatory framework, and we shouldn't let this opportunity slip by. I want to yield to Senator Wicker. As I said earlier, I am grateful to have been working with Senator Wicker all these many months and our staffs, as well, and, of course, with Senator Sullivan and all those involved. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I want to spend a couple of moments tonight--I know the hour is late for the Senate and people working here, but I want to end the night with a message about a law enforcement official in Pennsylvania whose memorial service I attended on Friday. This individual was a deputy marshal. His name is Christopher David Hill. He lost his life on January 18. He was living at the time in York, PA. He was killed in the line of duty in Harrisburg--not far from York--while attempting to apprehend a fugitive. I commend Deputy Marshal Hill for his service to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and his service to our Nation. He happened to be working in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, which meant he had responsibility for work through counties from the bottom of the State all the way up to Northeastern Pennsylvania, which is my home area. I offer our deepest condolences to his family. Law enforcement officers like Christopher Hill accept the special duty of protecting the rest of us and keeping our communities safe. I have to say that we often don't think about that in the context of Federal marshals who do critically important work every day of the week and are often in horrifically dangerous circumstances. In this case with Deputy Marshal Hill, the murderer was shooting from a higher position in a house. They didn't know this individual was in the house. He was shooting down at him. He had protective gear on. I won't give a full description because I am not qualified to do that, but the problem is the bullet came from a direction like this and entered his body from above and killed him even though he had protection on and all the proper protocols were followed. It was, in essence, a one-man ambush because they were trying to apprehend another individual on the floor below where the assailant was. That is the kind of danger Federal marshals face every day of the week, and sometimes we don't realize it. Chris and his loving family made the ultimate sacrifice for the Nation and for the people in Pennsylvania. For his bravery and the contribution of his family, who supported him, we are eternally grateful for that commitment to law enforcement and the country. Christopher David Hill was born in Sacramento, CA, but he was raised in Central Pennsylvania. He graduated from Warrior Run High School. He served his country as a Ranger in the U.S. Army, where he was assigned to the prestigious 3rd Battalion. While in the Army, Chris earned many awards, including the Army Commendation Medal. For the last 11 years, he served as a deputy U.S. marshal. He was a member of the agency's Special Operations Group, so-called SOG. At the memorial service, there were lots of references to that Special Operations Group because members of that group were there to not only pay tribute to him but to speak about his life, to speak about his service and to speak about his character and his bravery in very moving testimonials. The Special Operations Group is a specially trained and highly disciplined tactical unit. In 2012, Chris served on a SOG assignment in Afghanistan, for which he was recognized with a Director's Distinguished Group Award. In 2014, he was instrumental in the capture of notorious cop killer Eric Frein. Eric Frein was the individual who killed a State police officer and also injured another State police officer. In this case, Chris commanded U.S. marshals, FBI agents, and State troopers in one of the largest rural manhunts in recent American history. Chris was known as a dedicated and extremely capable law enforcement officer, and his numerous awards are proof of that. During his time at the Marshals Service, he received the FLETC Director's Leadership Award, a Special Act Award for Distinguished 300 Shooter, and a Special Act Award for achieving 95 percent weapons proficiency. Christopher was described as the person you wanted to go through the door with, someone on whom you could completely rely. He was also known for his sense of humor and his positive outlook on life. Outside of work, he enjoyed hunting and golfing with his friends and family, but most of all, Chris is known for his devotion to his family. Chris is survived by his devoted wife Sylvia, his loving son and daughter Travis and Ashlynn, his father John, his brother Joey, his sister-in-law Michala, and his sister Melinda. He was preceded in death by his mother Katherine. As I mentioned before, on January 18, he was shot and killed in the line of duty. The U.S. Marshals Service apprehends approximately 100,000 fugitives every year--100,000 every year--including the worst of the worst, violent felons whose capture makes our communities safer. Also shot in this altercation were Kyle Pitts, a New York City police officer, and a Harrisburg police officer who took a bullet to his ballistic vest but was not injured. We are praying for Kyle Pitts' full recovery. Last week, I joined law enforcement officers from around the country for the memorial service, as I mentioned. You could tell how Chris was loved and respected by the testimonials from those law enforcement officials. You can't see it from a distance, but this is a program from the memorial service. It has a list of those who spoke--I will not read all of them--and then it has Chris's biography, with a picture of him on the back. I could go through virtually every name of the ones who spoke in tribute to Chris--friends of his who worked with him. I am not sure I have ever been to a more emotional and moving ceremony in my life, where you had speak from the podium, one after another, these dedicated law enforcement professionals who are as tough and as determined as any man can be. Each person was very, very emotional, overcome with emotion in some cases. I am not sure I will ever be at a ceremony that is as moving. On a night like tonight, when we have a lot of debates and a lot of arguments on a range of issues, these are times we can come together to express not only condolences, not only tribute and appreciation but express, I think, what is the solidarity of our State and the Nation in paying tribute to a fallen law enforcement official. My colleague Senator Toomey and I were there together. There were also people from across the State who were there and Federal judges who serve in that district and Federal employees who worked with Christopher Hill. For so many reasons, we want to pay tribute to him tonight and express gratitude for his life of service and the commitment he made to the country, that he made to the Marshals Service, and that he made to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. We want to express our condolences to his wife Sylvia, to his family, and his children because of the dedicated way they supported him through all his years as a Federal marshal and as a law enforcement official. 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. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, tonight I rise to speak about two matters. The first is the issue of community health centers, which, of course, is a major issue for States across the country. Millions of Americans get their healthcare through community health centers. I will mention it more than once--800,000 of them are in the State of Pennsylvania. As we come closer to working out bipartisan agreements on a whole range of issues that are ahead of us literally in the next 2 to 3 weeks, I hope there will be a strong consensus to provide a funding plan and funding certainty to community health centers across the country. These community health centers provide access to healthcare through education, rehabilitation, preventive services, and direct care. These centers focus on meeting the very basic healthcare needs in a community. They provide critical services, especially for people in both urban areas and rural areas, where there are often limited options for primary care and prevention clinics. Despite the critical importance of these health centers, Congress failed to act to extend the majority of funding for community health centers before it ran out on September 30, 2017. After funds expired, the health centers were facing a funding reduction of between 60 percent and 70 percent of their funding. Last December, Congress passed a continuing resolution that included $550 million in funding for community health centers. That is nowhere near what they need to get through even 1 year. While this funding patch will provide some short-term relief, the funds do not provide the long-term funding stability for health centers that they need and that the patients who depend upon them should have a right to expect. It is time for Congress to end the delays and get a long-term funding plan in place for these community health centers by the next deadline for the continuing resolution for funding, which is, of course, February 8. Because there is a deadline, it does give us the chance to work toward that date, to get funding in place by the 8th. Across the United States, health centers serve more than 25 million patients per year. That is about 1 in 13 Americans overall. Consider this: I live in a State where we have 67 counties, but 48 of the 67 are so-called rural counties. That is the way they are categorized. There are a lot of healthcare needs in those rural communities and rural counties. Health centers provide care to one in four rural Americans. If that ratio were applied to Pennsylvania--we have at least 3 million people who live in rural communities. You can see the numbers. Hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians in rural areas depend upon healthcare from these community health centers. In terms of the centers themselves, in 2016, Pennsylvania had 264, and that meant there were thousands of people working in those health centers. There are close to 5,000--above 4,900 Pennsylvanians who work in these centers. These health centers provide quality care and vital services, as I said before, to a total of 800,000 Pennsylvanians-- rural, urban, and otherwise. To give you a sense of some of the testimony I received from people in our State, one story came from Emily, who works at the Family Practice and Counseling Network, a location I just visited today in Philadelphia. She wrote this letter to me a number of weeks ago. I won't read the whole excerpt, but this is what she said in pertinent part about the people who are served by these community health centers: They have lives filled with trauma and in turn suffer from social, physical, and behavioral issues that will go untreated if funding for [community health centers] goes away . . . our services are so needed. The words I want people to remember are ``lives filled with trauma.'' That is, unfortunately, a good description of the lives led by a lot of Americans when healthcare--in this case, a community health care center--is not there for them or when healthcare itself is threatened. ``Lives filled with trauma.'' Another person who works at the same place and who has been the leader of this particular institution, the Family Practice and Counseling Network in Philadelphia, is the executive director, Donna Torrisi. I met her just today. She sent me a letter prior to today about her concerns. She is concerned about the funding cliff resulting in a barrier to care for people who need mental health services that are critically important. Donna said in pertinent part: The impact on our community will be devastating. Our health center provides behavioral health services that are already limited in Philadelphia. Without funding, we'll need to close a site and cut jobs, causing patients to go without the care they desperately need. For purposes of this debate, I would consider that expert testimony on community health centers because I know that in Donna's case, she has worked in this field something on the order of 25 years. We appreciate her weighing in on this. I know there is concern on both sides of the aisle on this issue. I hope that concern results in a bipartisan agreement to fund community health centers to at least--and I would like to do a lot more, but at least give some funding certainty for the next year, meaning from now until the end of the fiscal year. I hope we can get an agreement that would give funding certainty for 2 years or more. That would be ideal.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the heroic life of Scranton firefighter Captain James Robeson on the 10th anniversary of his death. Captain Robeson was more than just a firefighter. He was a loving husband to his wife, Linda, and a caring father to his son, Ryan. He was a friend to many, a mentor to his colleagues, and a hero to us all. Captain Robeson made a career out of service and protection. He willingly served and courageously protected his colleagues, the city of Scranton, and all of us who inhabit it. Each time duty called, Captain Robeson heroically was one of the brave individuals running into the flames and chaos, while everyone else was running out. Captain Robeson was a man of high honor and integrity, two qualities demonstrated when he laid down his own life in an attempt to save another. Ten years after his death, it is still my honor to have been given the opportunity to serve a man as brave, honorable, and respected as Captain Robeson. His unquestioned willingness to serve others and courageous ultimate sacrifice is a reminder to me about the true meaning of public service.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Michigan for her words today but also, more importantly, for her advocacy for so many years, and maybe especially in the last year, on the Children's Health Insurance Program and all of the great work she has done. This is a program which has been bipartisan for a generation. I speak from the vantage point of Pennsylvania. It has been bipartisan in my home State for even longer than the Federal program. In Pennsylvania, the program was passed in 1992 and became law in 1993, and so for longer than the Federal program, which many people know started in 1997. It has personal connections to me. My father was the Governor who signed the legislation into law in 1993. Since that time, every Republican and Democratic Governor and, for the most part, the legislatures of both parties have supported it, which has been the case here. It is only lately that CHIP has become contentious. The tragic irony here--or if you wanted to use stronger language, I would use the word ``insult''--in this case, you had legislation to reauthorize--which is a fancy Washington word for ``do it again'' with maybe some changes--the legislation was reauthorized in the fall and was ready for passage on the Senate floor. The majority leader indicated that it had to get through committee, and it did. We had a unanimous vote in the Finance Committee to have children's health--to have that program be part of our law going forward. What happened? The deadline was September 30. The Republican majority had the opportunity to bring that bill, the KIDS Act--that was the bill--to the floor. If that bill were brought to the floor, it would have passed in a matter of hours, if not less. The majority decided not to bring the Children's Health Insurance Program reauthorization bill, the KIDS Act, to the floor before September 30, so the program expired September 30. Here we are, more than 100 days--I guess it is 112 days or something like that--since it expired. Republicans had the power to get children's health insurance done by September 30. They failed despite the fact that there was a bill to do that. It could have passed on the floor very quickly. They have all the power to do it, to get it on the floor, and they chose not to. That is bad enough, but it gets worse. They had all of the month of October, and they did nothing on children's health insurance. They had all of the month of November, and they did nothing on children's health insurance. They had all of the month of December, and they did nothing on children's health insurance. Now there is this newfound urgency to make sure they criticize Democrats for not passing this defective piece of legislation that has major holes in it from the House, which was developed only by the Freedom Caucus in the House, and we are supposed to accept, I guess, whatever the Freedom Caucus in the House wants. That is the way we are supposed to run the U.S. Senate. Why would Republicans--despite their assertions that they want to move the children's health insurance bill forward--let all of October, all of November, and all of December pass after they already let it expire? Why would they let all that time go by? It is not a mystery. We don't have to hire a private investigator to find out why they let it go that long. One reason is, because for most of November or all of November but certainly all of December, until, I guess, about the 22nd of December, they were focused on one priority, their tax bill, a tax bill which is a giveaway to the superrich. The top 1 percent gets about $51,000 in year one. I hope everyone else is going to do that well-- sorry, they are not. What do they do in that bill in addition to helping the wealthy? They gave big corporations not just the kind of tax cuts we have never seen before--more than almost $1.5 trillion for corporations--but they made it permanent. So they got permanent corporate tax relief when they should have been figuring out a way to get children's health insurance done. So that is the story of how we got from there to here. We hear now that because there are changes in the cost of children's health that this would be a 6-year bill. Well, that is a good amount of time, but guess what. Guess what. Because of all that change in the intervening period, we could do a 10-year Children's Health Insurance Program and save billions of dollars in doing it, compared to what Republicans want to do now. So if there is this urgency to do something about children's health on the Republican side, I say let's join together and not only get children's health insurance done--today we could do it. We have all day today. We have all day tomorrow. We have a big weekend of work here. Let's get children's health insurance done and knock something off the list. We don't have to worry about it, but while we are at it, let's make it 10 years. I would argue that children's health insurance should be a permanent program, just like the tax cuts for corporations. They found a way to give corporations permanent tax relief. Why wouldn't you support permanent children's health insurance? But if they can't do that, we could at least do it for 10 years. That is easy to do right here today, a 10-year Children's Health Insurance Program so that 9 million kids and their families and 180,000 in Pennsylvania can have the certainty to know that despite the fact that it is over 100 days late because of Republican failure to get the job done, we could get it done right now, today. So let's see what they do. Here is another issue we have to talk about because this bill that came over from the House didn't address this issue: community health centers. Eight hundred thousand people in Pennsylvania depend upon those community health centers. There is nothing in that bill that we voted on last night to address those 800,000 people in Pennsylvania and tens of millions across the country. The House bill didn't even touch that. I guess those people shouldn't have to worry. Community health centers, we know after that expired, just like the Children's Health Insurance Program--and the Republicans have the majority. They could have made sure the health centers continued, but they didn't. So after expiring, we know these health centers face a funding reduction of 60 percent to 70 percent. We also know, at least in my State, of the 180,000 children covered on CHIP, something on the order of 9,000 children enrolled in the CHIP program go to community health centers. So having CHIP in place is essential, but having community health centers in place alongside it is also essential. What do those 9,000 kids in Pennsylvania do if they have CHIP coverage but can't go to the community health center down the street because it is closed because it wasn't addressed by House Republicans or Senate Republicans? So while we are at it this weekend, why don't we get community health centers done. In my State, 4,915 people work there in full-time jobs-- 4,915 people. The third issue of four--and I will be done in a minute--tax extenders. That is kind of another Washington phrase, right? Well, in this case, not getting these extenders done by the end of the year, which we almost always do no matter who is in charge--but guess what. They couldn't do it. They didn't get to tax extenders for rural hospitals by the end of the year because guess what. They were working on their tax bill for big corporations and rich people. So rural hospitals got pushed aside, just like children's health got pushed aside, just like community health centers got pushed aside because they had to get their tax bill done for those big corporations and rich people. So tax extenders for rural hospitals didn't get done. Rural health providers face hundreds of billions of dollars of cuts across the Nation. I represent a State that has 67 counties, but we have 48 counties of those 67 that are rural. In those 48 rural counties, about 279,000 people got healthcare either through the Medicaid expansion or through the exchanges. In those communities where there is a rural hospital-- sometimes there is only one hospital for a long distance--those communities rely upon that hospital not just for healthcare but for jobs. Sometimes--in most places, it is the biggest employer in the county or the second biggest employer. In my State, there are between 20 and 30 rural counties where the hospital is either the biggest employer or the second biggest. They need those tax provisions in place, but the majority did not get that done. Finally, I will end with this. The senior Senator from Michigan highlighted this, and I think it is important. Another thing that didn't get done that wasn't in this bill coming over from the House was an important program we don't talk about enough. It has been in place a couple of years. That is the Maternal Infant and Early Child Home Visiting Program, an evidence-based home visiting program that supports at-risk pregnant women and young families. That didn't get done in this bill. It was not in the bill. In fiscal year 2017, funding for that program was $400 million. It is the right thing to do to have that in place. We know that just in Pennsylvania, for example, 3,282 families benefit from this program. That is another part of this bill that wasn't included. So if the majority is so concerned, as they professed last night--I wish they did this months ago, but just last night, breaking news, they are concerned about the Children's Health Insurance Program--let's pass it today. Let's get it done today and make it a 10- year program. No one would have to worry for an entire decade about children's health insurance if the Republican majority wants to join us in that effort. I yield the floor, and note that the next speaker is the senior Senator from Ohio, a great fighter for our kids and for our families.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise to talk about some of the issues we are facing as we approach a deadline tonight, but I really wanted to start with one observation about where we are and where we could be in the next couple of days. Some of the debate is focused on simply what could happen at midnight were there to be a shutdown of the Federal Government, but there is another alternative, of course, and that is--well, two, really: to have an agreement that would carry forward before the deadline. That is, in my judgment, less likely to happen. I don't think anybody believes that would happen, necessarily, but the other option, of course, is to have a number of days ahead of us--3 days, 4 days, whatever the leadership on the two sides can agree to--to continue negotiations because, of course, we have a range of issues. Sometimes we haven't talked enough about the long list of issues. I will get into a few tonight, but there is a rather long list of issues, some of which have already been the subject of not just consensus but a bipartisan piece of legislation, actual bill text that has been introduced or could be introduced in short order, in the next few days or even the next couple of hours. Then there are other issues where there have been ongoing issues for a long period of time, haven't reached consensus, but if we all give ourselves a deadline and stay here--and I hope people in both parties will stay for the next few days no matter what happens tonight. If there is an extension of 3 or 4 days, that doesn't make it any less challenging because that just means there will be a short-term deadline. I don't think it makes any sense to go another month because the can, in essence, will be kicked down the road again. We need to make decisions about some big issues. There are some who have observed that even if you were in favor of the measure that came over from the House last night, which I have real trouble with--a lot of gaping holes in that proposal, a lot of urgent matters for many Americans that have not been addressed in that proposal--but even if you favor that, you can also still hold the position you don't favor continuing resolution after continuing resolution. I guess we are on our fourth resolution, if we have the right count, since October 1--not that long ago. So that is at least my sense of where we could be in the next couple of days: not leaving Washington and staying at the negotiating table on a range of issues. That is the reasonable thing to do, not only to keep the government operating and open but also to finally resolve some major issues, which I think most of both parties want to solve. Let me start tonight with some personal letters. One of the major issues which is not resolved, but there has been a lot of effort made which is bipartisan, is the issue of pensions. I have received letters from a lot of Pennsylvanians who say: Look, it is up to you and up to the people in both parties to solve this pension crisis which has engulfed so many families. In Pennsylvania, if you add up the categories of people affected--retirees and their families--you are talking about at least 35,000 families, usually because the largest share of retirees are coal miners in Pennsylvania. I am sure it is true in other States as well. I got a letter from a woman in Washington County, PA, right in the southwestern corner of our State. I will not read the whole letter, but she was talking about her husband who is a retired miner. She said: ``He worked for many years in the coal mines and endured dangerous conditions, unsafe work hazards, and a mine fire which he narrowly escaped and closed the mine forcing him to lose his job.'' She concludes by saying: ``This pension is so important to him and to us''--and she goes on from there. That is one person talking about her husband doing the most dangerous work imaginable. I am not sure there is a more dangerous job in the world than coal mining, and I know of what I speak because of the corner of Pennsylvania I am from, the anthracite coal region. Here is another letter from the same corner of the State, Southwestern Pennsylvania, in this case, in particular, talking about the pension legislation which is before the Senate right now, the so- called Butch Lewis Act. Here is what this man says about his family, talking about the way he earned a pension. He said: We gave up pay raises, to get a meager pension, and as we get older we can't start over. Please [pass . . .] the Butch Lewis act. A third letter, also from Southwestern Pennsylvania--in this case from Westmoreland County, one county over, just to the east of Pittsburgh. This individual talks about the pension he received. He said: ``I am facing pension cuts that will have an immediate and devastating impact on my family.'' He goes on from there. We have even more letters. A letter from the same corner of the State, Fayette County--one of the great counties of Pennsylvania in the most southwestern corner, right next to Greene County, right on the Ohio or West Virginia border, depending on which side you are looking at. This individual said to me in the letter: [T]here are so many retired miners, widows and families that rely upon those benefits each month. Including my mother and me, she is a widow and I have cerebral palsy and we depend on my dad's pension to survive on the limited income. So the miner is speaking about the pension they earned and their hope and expectation, which is a reasonable expectation that the promise made in that pension would be fulfilled, or it is the perspective of a son or a daughter or a wife or even, unfortunately, in many cases, a widow talking about a miner who had passed away. Here is another letter from Southwestern Pennsylvania, talking about that word I just used, ``promise.'' This [pension] was a promise made by the government. . . . we kept ours . . . and now we hope that you will continue to

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

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak as well about the issue of pensions, as many of my colleagues have been speaking about tonight. First of all, I want to outline a series of what I believe to be promises that the Senate and the House must keep with large segments of the American people. Last year at this time, we were in a long debate, which had transpired over months, and the main issue there was healthcare for retired coal miners and their families. This was a promise made to coal miners across the country--thousands of them across the country and thousands in Pennsylvania alone--who were promised they would have healthcare in their retirement. That promise went unfulfilled despite the fact that we got a bill through the Senate Finance Committee, as we were instructed to do, to follow so-called regular order--have a hearing, have a vote, get it through the committee--but it was held up month after month, really from the fall of 2016 until April of 2017. That promise almost went unfulfilled, and it took far too long, but eventually we got it done. At that time, we made another promise to those same coal miners that we would work on the pension issue for them. That was the second half of the original legislation. When it comes to promises, we have promises to keep to those Americans who worked so hard in the most difficult job in the world. We also have some promises that must be fulfilled. I would hope that the Republican leadership and Republican Members of the House and the Senate, along with the administration--one party in charge of two branches of government--would keep their promise to 9 million American children. The Children's Health Insurance Program is more than 100 days overdue from being reauthorized. Everyone says they are for it, but it is not done. It was set aside to get a tax bill done, which, in my judgment, was a giveaway to the superrich and big corporations. Even if you wanted to support the tax bill, why couldn't you carve out some time by the end of the year, I asked the majority, to get the Children's Health Insurance Program reauthorized? Nine million kids; one hundred eighty thousand in Pennsylvania. Why couldn't you get it done? Here we are now in the middle of January facing yet another deadline, and the Children's Health Insurance Program is not yet reauthorized. That is a promise. We will see by the end of the week whether the majority keeps its promise to those 9 million children. The pension issue is the one I am going to talk about tonight, but there is also a promise that was made to approximately 800,000 young people, the individuals in the so-called DACA Program, the Dreamers. That is another promise. The promise we are talking about tonight, at least on this side of the aisle in the Senate, is the promise of pensions. Why do so many pension plans face the obstacles, the burdens, and the crisis they face right now? The two main reasons are, first and foremost, the financial crisis, which wiped out stock holdings just as these members were retiring, and, of course, the second reason is substantial job loss in the industries that are affected by these pension plans. While Wall Street and the gross domestic product have recovered from the horrific financial crisis that the country has now recovered from, but some people are still being hurt by it, and as the wealthier are doing better than ever--the number that was cited a couple of months ago was that since 1980, the share of national income--if you took all the income in the country, the share of national income held by the top 1 percent was 11 percent in 1980. That is a pretty high number for 1 percent. They had 11 percent of the national income. What was it in 2014? It had almost doubled to 20 percent. So when I say that the very wealthy, the top 1 percent, have done quite well--I have even used the word ``bonanza''--they have done very well since 1980--I can back it up with a number, and that is the number. So even as they are doing better, and those other indicators might seem better, wages and opportunities for the middle class have stagnated, and our pensions have paid the price. Workers across the country--including tens of thousands of coal miners, teamsters, and bakery and confectionary workers in Pennsylvania--are living with the worry that their pensions may not remain solvent. They played by the rules. They paid their dues. They put in their time for their companies. They and their children paid the price during the financial crisis with their jobs and their wages. They should not have to continue to pay the price in retirement through reductions in promised pension benefits. It is inexcusable and insulting for Americans to live with this type of worry, wondering whether they will have the quality of life in retirement they planned for and depended upon throughout their careers--careers of hard work and sacrifice, careers of giving so much to their companies and in many cases, so much to their country as well. Yet we have that uncertainty facing those individuals and their families. They are wondering whether, after decades of working in jobs that took a toll, in many cases, on their own bodies, they will need to go back to work so they can afford the heating bills or the cost of medication. That is insulting. We must take action now to shore up our pension system, to keep the promise to the Americans who made our country what it is today--the greatest in the world, for sure. We know where Democrats stand on this issue. We are with workers. The question now is whether Republicans will work with us to get this done. As I said before, Republicans have all the votes they need to get this done. They didn't flinch in December when it was a question of whether they would give $13 billion in tax windfalls to the Nation's largest banks. All of that, of course, was unpaid for. We know where Republicans stand when it comes to giving away billions of dollars in borrowed money to large, profitable corporations. That was the tax bill that I mentioned before. We will soon find out whether they stand with workers when it comes to their pensions. The Republican Congress needs to act now to make sure that we pass what is called the Butch Lewis Act to give retirees in Pennsylvania and others across the country the peace of mind that comes with knowing their retirement is secure. It is fundamental. This is a promise. It is either going to be kept, or it is going to be violated. This is the week to ensure that it is kept for those Americans who have worked so hard. They deserve these pensions. They have earned them. We need to keep our promise. The majority needs to keep its promise. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.