Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the destructive path that the majority is headed down with their attempts to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Republican bill, and, frankly, the House Republican bill that the Senate is now considering in addition to other ideas is, in my judgment, not really a healthcare bill but a tax cut bill. It is a tax cut bill for the super-rich--not only the rich but, literally, the wealthiest few Americans--while increasing costs for middle-class families. It gives States the option to allow insurance companies to discriminate again like they did before the ACA was passed. It would also allow those same policies to devastate our hospitals, particularly those in rural communities. I live in a State where 48 out of 67 counties are, in fact, rural counties. The Republican bill would rip away healthcare, according to the Congressional Budget Office, from 23 million Americans. Here is what that means in Pennsylvania, based upon the Congressional Budget Office numbers: Up to 770,000 Pennsylvanians could lose health insurance by 2026 if the bill were to pass, 48,000 Pennsylvania seniors on Medicare could lose access to services covered by Medicaid, and 52,600 Pennsylvanians with disabilities could lose Medicaid coverage. I live in a State where, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, over 722,000 Pennsylvanians with disabilities rely on Medical Assistance for their medical care. Medical Assistance is the State version of Medicaid. We know that if you are a child, if you are a senior, or if you have a disability, many Americans in those categories, of course, rely upon Medicaid. We also know, based upon the CBO numbers, that 180,000 Pennsylvanians could lose access to mental health and substance abuse care now provided by Medicaid. We have heard a lot of talk, and there has been a lot of work, actually, in this body, as well as in the other body, in the last year on the opioid problem. We have Democrats and Republicans focusing on a major national problem, an urgent public health problem. We have made some progress--not enough but some good progress--on opioid legislation. All of that would be badly undermined if we made the changes to Medicaid that some want to make here because of the significant impact that cuts to Medicaid would have on the challenge of reducing the opioid crisis. So even the possibility that this bill might become law is, in a sense, destabilizing to the healthcare marketplace, which has been better each year we move forward from the passage of the ACA in 2010. Just last week, the Pennsylvania Insurance Department announced average proposed rate increases for health insurance premiums for 2018. Here is what the Pennsylvania Insurance Department told us. If we maintain current law, premiums will go up 8.8 percent in Pennsylvania. If the Republicans get rid of the cost-sharing subsidies, which many seem either to want to get rid of or to want to ignore, thereby creating uncertainty--if those cost-sharing subsidies are thrown out the window--premiums will go up 2.5 times as much, by over 20 percent. So far, it is 8.8 percent under current law or 20 percent just based upon the cost-sharing subsidies being taken away. Also, if the individual mandate is repealed, premiums will go up almost three times as much, by 23 percent. If we get rid of both the cost-sharing subsidies and the individual mandate, premiums in our State will go up by over 36 percent. So we have a basic choice to make, at least as it relates to Pennsylvania. Under current law, it is 8.8 percent, and we should try to bring that down. I think there are ways we could work together in a bipartisan fashion to bring that down. But if we go in the direction that many want to go--especially on the Republican side--to undermine or to do nothing about cost-sharing and get to rid of the individual mandate, premiums go up 36 percent. So folks can make their choice to go up about 9 percent or to go up 36 percent. It is a real simple choice with basically two options. The bill that was passed in the House would destroy the lives of many vulnerable Pennsylvanians. What should we do about it? Well, the first thing we should do with the bill is to throw it in the trash heap. That is where it belongs, and I hope that is where Senate Republicans are headed and that they are going to start over on a new bill, because the bill that was passed in the House is very bad for the country. Among the 3 million Pennsylvanians with preexisting conditions are two remarkable young women whose mother first contacted me in 2009. Stacie Ritter, from Manheim, PA, is the mom of four children, including her twin daughters, Hannah and Madeline, who are depicted here in this picture when they were much younger. Hannah and Madeline were diagnosed with a rare and dangerous type of leukemia when they were just 4 years old. You can see their picture there at that time. Stacy and her husband Benjamin went bankrupt trying to pay their daughters' medical bills. She wrote to me at the time, saying that without healthcare reform, ``my girls will be unable to afford care, that is if they are eligible, for care that is critically necessary to maintain this chronic condition.'' Fortunately, things have changed in the last 8 or so years. Fortunately, Hannah and Madeline are healthy young women now. They are freshman at Arcadia University and are doing well. They rely on the Affordable Care Act's protections to ensure that they have access to affordable coverage, whether they are on their parents' plan or purchasing a plan in the individual market. As you can see on my left, this is a picture of Hannah and Madeline today as college freshmen. Without the Affordable Care Act, Hannah and Madeline could be denied health insurance. As their mom said, they could be ``punished and rejected because they had the misfortune of developing cancer as a child.'' The Republican bill passed in the House would put them at risk of being denied health insurance or being charged more because they are cancer survivors. I don't know why anyone would support a bill that would do that. Just a number of months ago I received a letter from Pam Simpson from Chester County, PA. Pam and her son Rowan have their story to tell. Rowan is 5 years old, and a number of years ago he was diagnosed with autism. I have talked about Rowan before on this floor and in other places and what Medicaid means for Rowan and his family. Medicaid provides important services for Rowan and others with disabilities, enabling Rowan to go to preschool and allowing his mother to work. Here is what his mom said to me. I won't read the whole letter, but I will just highlight the first page. The first page is Rowan's life before he was diagnosed with autism-- all of the challenges that he and his family had--and Rowan's life after the diagnosis of autism, but, then, ultimately, when he received Medicaid, or Medical Assistance, as we call it in Pennsylvania. Here is what his mom told me in the letter after he received word that he was going to be enrolled in Medical Assistance: Late January 2016, I applied for Medicaid. That is Medical Assistance. After Rowan was awarded Medical Assistance, we were able to obtain wrap-around services. These services included a Behavioral Specialist Consultant and a Therapeutic Staff Support worker. She goes on later in that paragraph to say that these wrap-around services ``have been a Godsend.'' Then she goes on later and says: I am thrilled by Rowan's daily progress. I cannot say enough good things about this program. Then she says: Without Medical Assistance, I am confident that I could not work full time to support our family. Our family would be bankrupt or my son would go without the therapies he sincerely needs. Here is the last line of her letter: We are desperately in need of Rowan's Medical Assistance and would be devastated if we lost these benefits. She is referencing ``Medical Assistance'' for Medicaid, the same program at the State level. So we have two families now that are totally reliant on these programs, either the ACA more broadly or, in particular, the Medicaid Program. Both families have referenced bankruptcy because of healthcare challenges in the life of that family--one who would be on the brink of bankruptcy, Rowan's family, and the other, who actually went through bankruptcy because of those healthcare challenges. No family in the United States of America should have to worry about going bankrupt because of a healthcare problem. We are well on our way to solving these problems, and no one should pull the rug out from under those families. But, unfortunately, when it comes to this legislation, that is exactly what could happen to many of them. I will give a third example: Alex. Recently I met Alex, who is from Southeastern Pennsylvania. He is 9 years old, and he has Down syndrome. Here is what Alex, a 9-year-old, wrote: Although I have a medical diagnosis of Down Syndrome, I am an excellent student. I get 100 percent on my spelling tests and I get picked as the Math King quite often. . . . My parents, my teachers, and everyone around me thought from the beginning there was nothing that I could not do. . . . I am able to get a good education because of the supports that I get from Special Education. That's why I am very concerned about the possible cuts in Medicaid funding in schools. . . . Medicaid funding in schools is a very, very important part of what makes it possible for us to receive successful education in school and become contributing members of our society. That is a 9-year-old in Pennsylvania reminding us about this important program. Alex has tremendous potential that would be in jeopardy by the proposed cuts to Medicaid. Here is another example: Peg Fagan of Pennsylvania. The Republican bill includes an age tax that will allow insurers to charge older Americans up to five times more than younger Americans. Peg is from Bucks County, in Southeastern Pennsylvania. She is a three-time cancer survivor who could not afford health insurance prior to the Affordable Care Act. She is approaching Medicare eligibility but still has a few years to go before she is old enough to enroll. Peg was able to find affordable health insurance thanks to the ACA, but under the Republican bill, she could once again be discriminated against for being an older adult, and another possible object of discrimination would be that she is a cancer survivor. That was the old law. That is where we were before, where insurance companies were allowed under the law to discriminate in that fashion. They could discriminate against you because you were a woman. They could discriminate against you because you had a preexisting condition. They could discriminate against you because you were a cancer survivor or because of your age, or so many other circumstances. I thought we were beyond that. I thought we had finally cured that problem, but some want to go back in time. So the CBO tells us that the Republican bill would rip away healthcare from 23 million Americans. I just went through some Pennsylvania stories. We have a lot more, and my colleagues will be hearing them. But for Hannah and Madeline and Rowan and Alex and Peg, we should ask ourselves a couple of basic questions. Healthcare for those Pennsylvanians should not be made worse, and they should not be made worse off, in order to give the top one-tenth of 1 percent a $200,000 giveaway. That is what the first version of the House healthcare bill would do. It would give the top one-tenth of 1 percent an average tax cut of $197,000. I exaggerated; I said $200,000. Let's be exact. It is $197,000 each. Why would we take away healthcare or even risk or create uncertainty about healthcare for Hannah, Madeline, Rowan, Alex, and Peg because some people around here want to give tax cuts to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars to very wealthy people? That is not what I call a healthcare bill. The Senate has an obligation, in my judgment--both parties--to stop this bill from being enacted into law. We cannot allow this legislation to pass or anything like it to become law. So I ask each Member of the Senate to consider these Pennsylvanians and plenty in your home States and the countless more like them who are anxiously hoping and praying this Congress will not vote to take away their healthcare. Drug and Veterans Treatment Courts Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the drug and other treatment courts, including veterans treatment courts, in Pennsylvania and the more than 3,000 across the Nation. Just last month during National Drug Court Month, drug courts across the country held graduation ceremonies to recognize individuals who completed this rigorous treatment program. These courts, which serve about 150,000 people a year, hold offenders with substance use and mental health disorders accountable for their actions through strict supervision while also connecting them to the treatment they need. More than 1.25 million people have successfully graduated from drug and treatment court programs and are now on a path to recovery. Research has demonstrated that drug and other treatment courts not only reduce crime but also reduce spending by slowing the cycle of recidivism. Drug and other treatment courts are also an important resource to law enforcement and community stakeholders working to combat the opioid epidemic. Opioid addiction is a growing public health crisis in Pennsylvania and throughout the Nation, and it demands real action. As public officials, we have an obligation to ensure that the resources and policies are in place to fight this scourge so that more families won't have to endure the heartache of losing a loved one to addiction. Veterans treatment courts are innovative and collaborative programs to address some of the unique challenges that face our veteran communities. There are approximately 22 million veterans in the United States, and Pennsylvania is home to nearly 1 million. The majority of veterans return to our communities as leaders and lead exemplary lives; however, not every veteran's path is straightforward. That is why we need to make sure the right programs and support services are in place. According to the Department of Justice, in 2011 and 2012, approximately 8 percent of the total incarcerated population in the United States were, in fact, veterans. These veterans found themselves serving time in correctional facilities because they had not received the treatment they needed. While this represents a very small percentage of veterans, it is important that we support programs like veterans treatment courts for veterans who face significant obstacles returning to civilian life, including mental health concerns, post- traumatic stress disorder, and substance abuse issues. These treatment courts can have a lifelong impact on a veteran by helping them get out of the criminal justice system and get the necessary treatment they have earned. It is our obligation to work every day to ensure veterans are receiving the care and support they deserve. There are many stories from across Pennsylvania and our country that exemplify why these veterans treatment courts are critical. Just to give one, shortly after Michael Colletti from Montgomery County received an honorable discharge from the U.S. Coast Guard, he found himself in the grips of a serious addiction to opioids. To support his growing habit, Michael began stealing from his employer, resulting in his arrest and jail time. His crimes were caused by his opioid use disorder, and Michael found himself in the Montgomery County Veterans Treatment Court. Finally, getting the accountability he needed and connecting with the benefits he earned as a veteran, Michael began the process of leaving behind his life of addiction and crime to start a new path. Today, Michael Colletti is a partner in a successful small business and a mentor to others in his community struggling with their own substance use. He says of the veterans treatment court: I wouldn't be here without the support network from the court. I wouldn't have my girlfriend, I wouldn't have my beautiful place, I wouldn't have my career, and most importantly, I wouldn't have the sound clarity of mind to be myself again. Now I am committed to paying it forward. I and I know many others are proud to support a recent letter led by our colleagues, Senator Klobuchar and Senator Wicker, highlighting the importance of funding the Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program and veterans treatment courts. As we go through the appropriations process, I urge my colleagues to consider the proven track record of these courts in improving outcome for graduates, and I hope Congress will offer strong support for these important programs that have been helping the justice system better serve individuals, veterans, their families, friends, and communities. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. CASEY

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

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to commend Bonnie Seaman, who has loyally served the people of Pennsylvania for more than 40 years, more recently as the director of constituent services for my Senate office. Bonnie has not only been a trusted member of my staff but a very close family friend. Bonnie was born and raised on a turkey farm in Leck Kill, PA. She is the youngest of four children. She first began her public service career in county government at what was then known as the Northumberland County Mental Health and Mental Retardation Department, where she touched the lives of people in her community. In pursuit of a college degree, Bonnie attended Indiana University of Pennsylvania and graduated cum laude with a degree in education. After graduation, she worked as a special education teacher. Bonnie's passion for helping others steered her career to the Pennsylvania State Senate. While working in the Pennsylvania Senate, she was asked by her supervisor if she was interested in working on my father's transition team after he was elected Governor of Pennsylvania in 1986. This transition job offer was supposed to be temporary, but Bonnie would spend the next 30 years working in State government for both then-Governor Casey and then me, when I got to State government years later. She worked as the Governor's executive assistant for 8 years, and of course she wore many hats, managing the Governor's staff, scheduling events, and resolving constituent issues, but her most important role was providing support to the Governor. Her dedication and loyalty earned her the respect of her fellow employees in the Governor's office as well as those she worked with outside of the office. After working in Governor Casey's administration, Bonnie worked as well with my father on his autobiography entitled ``Fighting for Life.'' In his book he pays tribute to her as follows: I could never have made it through this project without my executive assistant, Bonnie Seaman. It's hard to think of any work I have done these past ten years without Bonnie. Another theme of this book is loyalty, and few people have taught me more about the trait than Bonnie. I am deeply indebted to her for the skill and good spirit she brings to our work right up to this day. That was written more than 20 years ago--just about 22 years ago. Of course, I can say the same thing about Bonnie's work in the U.S. Senate. In 1996, when I was elected the State's auditor general, Bonnie was vital to, first, my transition team. Then she served as the director of the Office of the Auditor General for 8 years, where she oversaw day-to-day operations of my schedule and the management of staff. When I was elected State treasurer in 2004, Bonnie began work with the Treasury Department. Then, finally, when I was elected in 2006 to the Senate, I asked Bonnie to serve as director of constituent services. I knew that her dedication to public service and compassion for others would make her an excellent director. She led the office of constituent services for 10 years with distinction. With her gold standard professionalism, and unimpeachable ethics, she was a mentor to her staff and served as a shining example of quality public service. Through her work, Bonnie has touched the lives of over 60,000 Pennsylvania constituents. On behalf of my family, as well as thousands of families across our Commonwealth, I express our gratitude to Bonnie Seaman for more than three decades of stellar public service. The building we worked in, in Harrisburg, has this inscription on the front of it, the finance building: ``All public service is a trust, given in faith and accepted in honor.'' Bonnie accepted the trust that was placed in her. She kept faith with taxpayers and brought honor to her work. I wish Bonnie well in her retirement as she travels with her husband Tom, attends yoga classes, and enjoys time with her family and friends. 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. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to talk about the Russia questions that are on the minds of so many Americans. We had--I think, in the midst of all of the debate and controversy and genuine concern across the country--some good news yesterday when it was announced that Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein had made the decision to appoint a special counsel and, in this case, former FBI Director Mueller. That was good news because, No. 1, there was a special counsel who would undertake a review of these questions and in an independent fashion. I think people across not just Washington but even across the country were heartened by the fact that it was someone of the caliber, the experience, and the dedicated law enforcement commitment that Director Mueller demonstrated in his years with the FBI as Director, as a prosecutor. That was good news. We are grateful for that. I know we will have a chance in a little while to talk to the Deputy Attorney General about these issues. I think we have to examine a couple more questions that arise. So to review, on January 26, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates informed the Trump administration that General Flynn had apparently lied about having conversations with the Russian Ambassador, warning that it could open him up to blackmail. On May 8, Yates testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and stated, contrary to claims by White House officials, that Flynn had discussed Russian sanctions in his those conversations with the Russian Ambassador. On January 27, President Trump hosted Director Comey at the White House, where the New York Times reported he asked Director Comey to pledge his loyalty. Director Comey reportedly promised only honesty. On January 30, President Trump fired Acting Attorney General Yates, claiming her dismissal was over a matter unrelated to Russia. On February 13, fully 18 days after the White House was originally informed by Yates of General Flynn's misconduct, General Flynn was relieved of his job after it became public that he lied about his conversations with the Russian Ambassador. The day after General Flynn was pushed out, the President reportedly summoned Director Comey to a private meeting in which he took the extraordinary step of asking him to drop the FBI investigation into Flynn. In March and again in May, Director Comey publicly confirmed that Trump associates were under investigation for possible coordination with Russia to interfere in the election. On May 9, President Trump fired Director Comey. His administration initially said it was based on a recommendation from Attorney General Sessions, who was supposed to be recused from anything to do with the Russia investigation, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who reportedly had been asked by Director Comey just days earlier for additional funding for the Russia investigation. But then the President himself revealed he fired Director Comey explicitly because of the Russia investigation. The day after, the President tweeted a veiled threat that Director Comey ``better hope that there are no `tapes' '' of their conversation, raising the question of whether the President was surreptitiously recording his Oval Office meetings and whether tapes exist. While it may be unrelated, it also bears mentioning that, this week, it was also reported that President Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian officials in a private Oval Office meeting-- information that could jeopardize critical intelligence assets and risk undermining relationships with allies. I think there are some serious questions, even with the special counsel who has been named, even with two Intelligence Committees reviewing these matters. I would hope that, in addition to those reviews that are being undertaken--those investigations--that we also have an independent commission to get all of the answers we need so that we can ensure the American people that this will never happen again--that no foreign government, in this case, a foreign adversary, can interfere in an election at any time in our future. That guarantee will not be ironclad unless we know exactly what happened and why it happened, and then we take a series of steps to prevent it from happening. We should be very clear with the Russian Federation that if they do this again, they will be sanctioned, and there will be a consequence in response to their actions. We won't be able to do any of that unless we find the answers. Here are a couple of basic questions I hope would be a part of the deliberations, not just of the two committees or other committees that might review this but also the deliberations and work of the special counsel and his team. The first question is, Why does the President believe that the Russian election interference investigation is baseless, which is contrary to the unanimous finding of 17 U.S. intelligence agencies? These agencies issued a ``high confidence'' assessment of the determination they made. That is a technical term in the intelligence circles that they don't use lightly. Based upon the findings of those intelligence agencies and that finding being of high confidence, why does the President continue to question or even undermine that determination? Question No. 2 is, Why did Attorney General Sessions, who had to recuse himself from the Russian investigation, weigh in on the firing of the FBI Director responsible for that very investigation? That is a question, I think, a number of people are asking. Question No. 3 is, Can the Justice Department's political leaders-- individuals who have just come in with this administration and officials in the Justice Department--be trusted not to interfere in the ongoing FBI investigation? That is a question. Question No. 4 is, Why, immediately after firing Director Comey and amid the uproar about interference in the Russian investigation that it created, did the President convene a private meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister and the Russian Ambassador in the Oval Office and allow the Russian state media--the Soviet-era state media entity--to cover that meeting while keeping out the U.S. media? I think that is a question that a lot of people have. Question No. 5 is, Why did the President reveal highly classified information to the Russian Federation, according to the reporting by the Washington Post and others, during this meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister and the Russian Ambassador, and what are the implications of that disclosure? That is something that we need to have answers to. At least these five questions--you could add many more--are critically important questions. In some respects, there are even more urgent questions in front of us, and I will focus a little bit on those today--basically, three, I guess. No. 1, did the President intentionally interfere with the ongoing FBI investigation into his associates, people that were on his campaign or on the campaign or working in the government now? The interference question seems more likely than not based upon the reporting, but we have to know for sure, one way or the other: Did the President intentionally interfere with an ongoing FBI investigation? No. 2, are any such efforts to interfere ongoing? If the answer to the first question is yes--and we don't know for certain if it is question yes, but if it is yes--if there was intentional interference with the investigation by the President, the second question would be, Are there any such efforts to interfere that are ongoing? No. 3, do they extend--meaning this potential alleged interference-- past the FBI inquiry, to the investigations in the Senate and the House of Representatives? I think that is a question that is rather urgent as well. Will this attempt to interfere, or alleged attempt to interfere, carry over into other investigations? In essence now, we have three inquiries. One is the House Intelligence Committee, the other is the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the third would be Special Counsel Mueller's investigation. They are all critically important. I would hope that we could add a fourth to that, which would be an independent commission, like the 9/11 Commission, where we came to definitive conclusions with regard to what happened on 9/11. Then, added to those conclusions, there were a series of recommendations so that we could prevent another 9/11. The same could be said here--that we want to make sure we get answers to these questions, have conclusions made, have accountability with regard to those conclusions, but then have a series of recommendations about how to prevent Russian interference or the interference of any foreign adversary in our election ever again. Director Comey himself warned about the danger of undue influence on FBI investigations in an exchange during a May 3 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. In this case, it was Senator Hirono, a Democratic Senator from Hawaii, who asked if the Attorney General or senior Justice Department officials had ever ordered the FBI to halt an investigation. Interestingly, here is what Director Comey replied to that question: ``Not in my experience,'' meaning not in his experience does he know of an instance where the Justice Department officials interfered with an FBI investigation. I will read it again. Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something. Then, he continues on, and it picks up with this: [W]ithout an appropriate purpose. . . . a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It's not happened in my experience. That is the now former FBI Director saying that there is no precedence for the idea that the Justice Department would ask the FBI to take an action, which would be interference. Director Comey was talking about the Department of Justice in this case--actions by the Department of Justice to interfere with an FBI investigation. In retrospect, perhaps a better question would have been whether the political interference he thought would be a ``very big deal'' might have been coming directly from the Oval Office. It is essential that we get to the bottom of this--a number of these questions. An issue of this importance requires that the full investigative power of the Federal Government be brought to bear. The House and Senate Intel Committees are doing their investigation, as I said. The FBI investigation continues as well, despite concerns about independence in the wake of Director Comey's firing. I hope, and I expect, that the next FBI Director will be someone who will be as independent, as capable, and as committed as Director Mueller is as the new special counsel. We know there are dedicated professionals running these investigations. It has long been my belief that these extraordinary circumstances demand even more. I have been repeating for some time that we need a greater level of independence to insulate this critically important investigation from any suspicion of partisan interference. That is why I have been calling--for many weeks now, since early March--for a special counsel. I am glad the Justice Department now agrees with me. Suffice it to say that we have a lot more work to do. Ultimately, this will be the work of everyone here, even if you are not a member of the Intel Committee or any other committee that is doing work that is directly relevant to this because, ultimately, the Congress has to take actions to get to the bottom of these questions but also be part of the process, at least, of imposing accountability and, also, especially the Congress is going to have to play a major role--the leading role--in making sure we put in place policies and procedures and laws that prevent this from ever happening again. I hope the administration will join us in taking every step necessary to get to the bottom of these questions and to insist and to ensure that this never happens again to any American election. That is not just a goal, that has to be a guarantee as a result of this process. If the administration is not committed to that, I am not sure what they are committed to. To take lightly or to ignore a problem that is this great and this serious, to undermine our democracy is, I think, to put at risk the very foundation of our Nation as a nation of laws and not of men, a nation that is committed to the rule of law. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I thank my colleague. Mr. President, I rise to speak about what the Senior Senator from Virginia just spoke about, and that is the miners' healthcare. We have complete action at long last. This should have been done in December, when we were pleading with the majority leader at the time to get it done then. But we are happy we are at this point now, where one of two--one promise has been fulfilled, and that is the promise of permanent, guaranteed healthcare for thousands, tens of thousands of miners across the country. In my home State, the last count was 1,955. Let's round it off to 2,000--a lot of families. We are grateful we are at this point. I do want to reiterate what Senator Warner said about our colleague from West Virginia, Senator Manchin. He is right. Joe Manchin brought this up at every meeting over the course of many, many months and several years. We are grateful for the leadership he demonstrated and grateful that he kept us all focused. I thank all of our colleagues who worked on this. I think, initially, going back years ago, before Senator Manchin was in the Senate, Senator Rockefeller was raising this issue. This really has been around a long time--for at least 5 years. We heard this morning from Cecil Roberts, president of the United Mine Workers of America, who talked about this 5-year fight. I commend and salute Senator Manchin. I also thank the committee dynamic here, the Finance Committee--several members on the committee-- with Senator Wyden helping us get this bill, the Miners Protection Act, through the Senate Finance Committee and the leadership of Senator Schumer, as well, in focusing our caucus on getting this done. I just want to make two additional points. One is a negative note, but I think it is important to point this out. There was a story yesterday in the publication, ThinkProgress. Here is what the headline was: ``Trump administration admits it used miners' healthcare as a bargaining chip.'' That was the headline. Then the subheadline was: ``Coal miners were just pawns in a larger game.'' That is what the headline and subheadline said. I am not sure I have read a more disturbing headline in a long time, where the healthcare of coal miners--retired coal miners, who were promised this decades ago, would be used as pawns in a debate about a spending bill. Unfortunately, that is at least what has been reported. I hope we don't ever see a headline like that again. Going forward, the problem for us now is, as much as we are happy about this current result on healthcare, we still have a lot of work to do for miners, especially when it comes to their pensions. That is the second half of the promise. So I remind everyone again, these miners kept their promise. They kept their promise to their company to work in the darkness and danger of a coal mine, sometimes for decades, not just years. They kept their promise to their families to support them in the most difficult job imaginable. And many of them have served in combat or served in the military, in one war or another. They kept their promise to their country. It is time we fulfill the entire promise, and that means getting pensions done as well. We are grateful to be part of this, and let's keep the momentum going for pensions for all of the retired miners. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a great Pennsylvanian and a great American: Neil Smit. Neil has made extraordinary contributions to our country through his service as a Navy SEAL, his leadership and innovation in the business world, and his dedication to community service. Neil has served as a leader in the business community for decades with Comcast, Charter Communications, AOL, Pillsbury, and Nabisco. His notable career began serving his country as a member of the elite Navy SEAL Team Six. He retired from Active Duty as a lieutenant commander. He has never lost his commitment to his country and his comrades. In the private sector, he has worked on behalf of veterans by championing Comcast's pledge to hire veterans and to help Active-Duty servicemembers transition from the military to the civilian workforce. In all of his roles, Neil has always exemplified the best traits of a leader. During his time as CEO of Comcast Cable, Neil led his team to innovate and develop game-changing products and businesses that benefited consumers. His devotion to his community is evident in his role with the executive committee of the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia's board of trustees. Neil is also a member of the board of visitors for Nicholas School of the Environment at his alma mater, Duke University. He also serves as chairman of the executive committee and is a member of the board of directors of C-SPAN. Neil's life of service and leadership is an inspiration to many, and we thank him for his service to our great country.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I want to add to the remarks of Senator Brown. We had a process; the Presiding Officer was a part of this, as well, in the Finance Committee getting the Miners Protection Act through the Finance Committee, 18 to 8. It should have been voted on by the end of the year so these miners could have certainty with regard to healthcare and pensions, and our government could keep our promise to those miners. Our government has not kept its promise to coal miners, and some of them are here today in Washington. It is about time our government kept our promise. They kept their promise to their company, to their country, and every promise that they have been asked to keep. It is time that we did our job here in the Senate. Get this legislation passed in the month of April.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Dr. Thomas E. Starzl, the pioneer in the field of organ transplantation who impacted the lives of thousands directly and indirectly. Dr. Starzl died on March 4, 2017, 1 week shy of his 91st birthday. To say Dr. Stazrl was a remarkable surgeon, researcher, or physician does not begin to describe this man or the contributions he made. He was a visionary who created and then transformed an entire field of medicine. He performed the first liver transplant in 1963, the first heart-liver transplant in 1984, and led a team conducting a five-organ transplant in 1987. In 2007, at the age of 80, Dr. Starzl visited with me to seek research funding for the hand transplant program at the University of Pittsburgh. He never stopped envisioning what more could be done or striving to achieve it. The late Senator Robert F. Kennedy once said, ``only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly.'' Dr. Starzl was not afraid to fail, and through his determination and the innovation and advances he brought forth, organ transplantation preserved human life, and the University of Pittsburgh became the busiest transplant center in the world. Knowing that the actual surgery is only one part of a successful transplantation, Dr. Starzl worked to develop immunosuppressant therapies and played a role in creating tacrolimus, which remains the most widely used immunosuppressant drug in the world. He also believed that it was his obligation to train the next generation of transplant surgeons. Today approximately 90 percent of transplant centers are headed by surgeons Dr. Starzl directly trained or by surgeons who learned from surgeons Dr. Starzl trained. Over his decades of service, Dr. Starzl profoundly impacted many lives and families, including my own. Our family will always be grateful for the extraordinary care Dr. Starzl provided for my father, during his second term as Governor of Pennsylvania. In June of 1993, Dr. Starzl oversaw Governor Casey's exceedingly rare heart and liver double transplant surgery. My family cherished the 7 additional years we had with my father. Among the many accolades Dr. Starzl received was being ranked 213th in the book ``1,000 Years, 1,000 People: Ranking the Men and Women Who Shaped the Millennium.'' Published in 1998, this book named the people who had the greatest impact on the world over the previous 1,000 years. Dr. Starzl's inclusion speaks to the enormous impact he had on so many lives. Dr. Starzl's passing leaves a void, but we know the foundation he built for organ transplantation will endure through the many lives he saved, the surgeons he trained, and the high standards he set for quality of care. In the statement released by his family, it was noted that he ``was a force of nature that swept all those around him into his orbit, challenging those that surrounded him to strive to match his superhuman feats of focus, will and compassion.'' His ``superhuman feats'' will remain an inspiration for those in the medical profession and beyond.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, the easiest way for workers to save the additional money they need for retirement is through work-based retirement plans. When workers have access to work-based plans, the vast majority of them choose to participate, but many Americans do not work for an employer that offers such a plan. According to AARP, 55 million private-sector workers ages 18 to 64 had no ability to save for retirement through an employer-sponsored plan in 2013. Of those workers, 2.2 million lived in Pennsylvania In response, numerous States and multiple cities have considered programs that would give residents better access to retirement savings accounts, and multiple States have already passed laws putting such programs in place: Our Republican colleagues are trying to nullify efforts by these States and cities, rolling back their efforts to give their citizens better access to retirement savings accounts. It is both surprising and disappointing to see this opposition mounted against a measure we should all be able to support--enhancing access to retirement savings. In undermining these programs, Republicans will be denying access to safe, low-cost retirement savings vehicles. A recent study looking at just the city of Philadelphia found that roughly half of Philadelphia workers between the ages of 25 and 64 did not have access to an employer-sponsored retirement plan at work. Further, 20 percent of Philadelphians over the age of 65 are poor, compared to 9 percent nationwide; 30 percent of Philadelphians over the age of 65 have incomes between 100 and 200 percent of poverty. One of the most important elements of economic security for the middle class is retirement security. Millions of Americans ask, ``Will I have enough money saved to retire and retire comfortably?'' The answer to that question for too many Pennsylvanians is no. Looking at these facts, Philadelphia took action and began exploring ways to expand access to saving for our workers. Through these resolutions, Republicans will severely undermine the efforts of cities and States to expand access to retirement savings vehicles to the citizens by facilitating IRA retirement savings through private employers. The programs States and cities are pursuing are simple, low-cost, and voluntary. Most would simply require that employers that do not currently offer a plan facilitate voluntary employee contributions to an Individual Retirement Account. Our State and local governments are our idea incubators. Many of our States and cities, including Philadelphia, want to make it easier for workers to save for retirement. In repealing this guidance, Republicans are hindering that effort.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this evening to speak about the nomination of Judge Gorsuch to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Every Member of the United States Senate has an obligation to review this nomination thoroughly and to make a determination. I believe the advice and consent duty of a Senator--certainly in my case, when I make decisions about any judge for confirmation, but especially for the Supreme Court--has to be a decision grounded in a review of a number of considerations. I think they are generally the same no matter who the nominee is, but sometimes they can vary. I think in this case there are probably additional considerations that I weighed. Of course, we want to look at the nominee's character and their integrity, certainly their judicial temperament. Someone can be very capable as a judge and very learned in the law, but they may not have the temperament or the integrity. I don't think there is any question that there is nothing in the record that indicates that Judge Gorsuch doesn't have the experience or the character and integrity to do this job, and to do it with the kind of temperament we have the right to expect from any judge. I also believe at the same time, though, that you have to do a review of the cases decided by the nominee--in this case, a judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, a very similar kind of job to that which the Supreme Court Justice does. You are reviewing cases on appellate court. In Judge Gorsuch's case, it is the Tenth Circuit--not the Supreme Court, but still appellate court decisions. Part of that inquiry I believe is a review of an assessment, really, of this individual's judicial philosophy. That is where I will spend most of my time tonight. I will also talk about the rule change that might be upon us. While reading Judge Gorsuch's opinions, I developed very serious concerns about his rigid judicial philosophy. Judge Gorsuch's opinions indicated, in my judgment, an extremely conservative judicial approach. This leads him to come down disproportionately on the side of powerful interests, against workers in many cases, and consumers in other cases--a cause for particular concern at a time when the Supreme Court itself, under Chief Justice Roberts, has become an ever more reliable ally to big corporations. A major study published by the Minnesota Law Review in 2013, found that the four conservative Justices currently sitting on the Court are among the six most business friendly Supreme Court Justices since 1946. A review by the Constitutional Accountability Center shows the consequences of the Court's corporate tilt, finding that the national Chamber of Commerce has had a success rate of 69 percent in cases before the Roberts Court, a significant increase over previous courts. These are cases of serious importance to everyday Americans--cases involving rules for consumer contracts, challenges to regulations, ensuring fair play in labor standards, and attempts by consumers to hold companies accountable for product safety and much more. Another concern I have about his nomination is that at some point in the campaign of last year, the Republican nominee was given a list of names from which he should choose, were he to be elected President. I would hope that there would be a list of names that any President would consider beyond what we are told in published reports was just 21 names, developed by organizations on the far right. And that fact alone causes me great concern--that the President is permitted, according to this arrangement, this understanding, only to consider a list of 21 names that those organizations developed. The record of this judge indicates also that he would only exacerbate the problem that I pointed to with regard to the corporate tilt of the current Roberts Court. In my judgment, by doing so, it would further stack the deck against ordinary workers and families. It starts with his basic judicial philosophy. He employs the narrowest possible reading of Federal law and shows extreme skepticism--even hostility-- toward executive agencies or what some might call administrative agencies, agencies that carry out the law in areas like labor or consumer protections and the like. Many have expressed concerns about his opinion in the Hobby Lobby case, where Judge Gorsuch endorsed the idea that owners of for-profit corporations can assert corporate religious liberty rights, opening the door potentially to widespread discrimination against LGBT Americans and other Americans as well. But a variety of other cases are equally illustrative of Judge Gorsuch's troubling approach to the law. I will give you just a few examples. One case involved the tragic death of a trench hand who was electrocuted while working as part of an excavation crew. The court reviewed a ruling by the Department of Labor, punishing the mining company for failing to provide proper safety training to the worker. Judge Gorsuch mocked the Department of Labor's ruling as nothing more than a ``Delphic declaration'' devoid of necessary proof, and he concluded that the agency was wrong to penalize the company following the worker's death. Fortunately, a majority of the Tenth Circuit disagreed and affirmed the Department of Labor's ruling. Another case involved a truckdriver who was stranded on the side of the road at night in subzero temperatures, with the brakes on his trailer frozen and the heater in his cab broken. He called dispatch for help multiple times, but after hours of waiting in the freezing cold, this truckdriver was having trouble breathing, and his torso and his feet were numb. Worried about his safety, he unhitched his trailer, drove the truck away, and then later the company fired him for abandoning the trailer. Three different authorities within the Department of Labor ruled against the company. Judge Gorsuch disagreed, parsing a Federal statute to argue that the driver was not protected in his decision to drive away, despite the risk of freezing to death if he stayed put. Again, fortunately, the majority of the Tenth Circuit Court disagreed, describing the judge's labored interpretation of the statute as ``curious,'' and ruling in favor of the truckdriver. I have a basic disagreement with Judge Gorsuch's rulings regarding the legal protections for individuals with disabilities, especially students with disabilities. In one case, he ruled against parents who believed their autistic child was not receiving an adequate education at his public school. A hearing officer, an administrative law judge, and a U.S. district court all found in favor of the family, ruling that they were entitled to reimbursement for tuition at a residential program tailored for children with autism. Judge Gorsuch reversed the rulings and, instead, articulated an extremely narrow interpretation of Federal law--this particular Federal law that protects students with disabilities, the IDEA law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In 2004, Congress amended the IDEA, in part, based upon findings that its implications have been ``impeded by low expectations.'' Nevertheless, Judge Gorsuch ruled that because the student in this case made some progress in public school, even though he could not generalize his learning to settings outside of school--which is the goal of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act--the family, the judge believed, was not entitled to tuition reimbursement. That decision happened a number years ago. It just so happens that the U.S. Supreme Court, the current Court with only 8 members, voted 8 to 0 against the basic position that Judge Gorsuch had in that education case--a different case but the same question about what is the duty owed by a school district to a child with a disability. That ruling happened to be announced during the week that Judge Gorsuch was in front of the Judiciary Committee--in fact, on one of the very days he was in front of the committee. A unanimous Court disagreed with his approach to those kinds of cases involving children with disabilities in a public school. These cases and others are illustrative of a broader trend in the judge's jurisprudence, whether it is a case involving an employee seeking redress for work place discrimination, hospital staff fighting for back pay after an unlawful reduction in the work hours, or a victim of improper conduct by a medical device company looking for justice. Judge Gorsuch's approach produces rulings disconnected from the lived experience of those they impact. Therefore, after review of many of his cases, after consideration of his judicial philosophy, and after a review, as well, of the current state of this Court--especially the corporate tilt of this current Roberts Court--I have concluded that I could not support Judge Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court. I wanted to add some comments before concluding tonight about what this vote may mean to the Senate and the rules of the Senate. It is my belief--others, of course, disagree--but it is my belief that if you seek to become an Associate Justice on the most powerful Court in the world, you ought to be able to garner the support of at least 60 members of the U.S. Senate. If your nomination to the Court is the subject of such consensus, you ought to be able to get 60 votes in the U.S. Senate. If both your nomination and your judicial philosophy is seen as such a mainstream nomination, you ought to be able to get 60 votes. Despite that, it is a point in time when we are having a debate about how we arrived at this question of a potential change in the rules. I believe that the reason we got here is because of substantial and unyielding obstruction by Republicans in the U.S. Senate over a number of years. Just consider this: From the founding of our Nation, through President Obama's first term when Senate Republicans were in the minority, cloture--the motion to cut off debate and proceed to a final vote--has been filed in a total of just 147 nominations. Just 147 times in the total history of the U.S. Senate, the minority forced the majority to file cloture. Of all the Presidents before President Obama combined, cloture needed to be filed only on 68 of these nominations, but in President Obama's first term before Republicans took the majority of the Senate, Republicans refused to consent to votes and forced the Democratic leader to file cloture on 79 nominations--over 50 percent of all the cloture motions ever filed on nominations in the history of the U.S. Senate. So half of those cloture petitions were filed just in the last couple of years. That doesn't even include what I think was an outrageous obstruction that continued once Republicans took the majority, culminating, of course, in their refusal to consider Judge Merrick Garland's nomination. So Judge Garland, of the District of Columbia Circuit, the chief judge who had great support, I think, on both sides of the aisle--Judge Garland had maybe a few meetings, no vote, and not even a hearing before the Judiciary Committee. According to the Congressional Research Service, President Obama is the only one of the five most recent Presidents whose first term was marked by nominations that languished for over half a year on average. Also in his first term, he was the only President of the previous five under whom the district court vacancies increased, unaccompanied by the creation of new judgeships to meet the demand. In fact, President Obama's district court nominees, during his first term, waited an average of 60 days longer for confirmation than those of President George W. Bush. I think the evidence is overwhelming. Senate Republicans' obstruction of judicial nominations reached historic levels under President Obama. So we are here at this point, and we have to make a decision. My vote will be to insist on 60 votes; therefore, I will be voting no on cloture and also voting no on the nomination of Judge Gorsuch. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to express my grave concern about Russian aggression and interference in our political system. My concerns have been compounded over the last several weeks by the response to these allegations by President Trump and his administration. First, let's step back for a moment. We know that the Russian Federation is an adversary of the United States. That is without question. Vladimir Putin is what I would like to call a 24-hour bad guy. There are a lot of other ways to express it, but that is one way. There is not a moment of the day when he isn't using his power to undermine our Nation's interests and the interests of freedom and democracy across the globe. We know that the Russian regime kills journalists, jails and silences their critics, and commits war crimes in places like Syria and Ukraine. Russia meddles in elections throughout the Western world. Mr. Putin has a warped world view. His view is that the freedom and democratic rights of tens of millions of people in Europe should be subject to the interests of a few in the Kremlin because those countries lie within Russia's supposed sphere of influence. The work done by our intelligence agencies indicates that Russia meddled in our election with the intent of aiding President Trump. We know that now. In January, our intelligence agencies 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 what our intelligence agencies tell us, and I am quoting verbatim from that basic finding. President Trump's refusal to accept the assessment of our intelligence agencies was deeply concerning--and that is an understatement. My concerns were compounded by the fact that President Trump ran on the most pro-Russian platform in modern history. Since President Trump has taken office, he has harshly criticized our allies, from Australia to Mexico, yet when it comes to Russia's provocations and war crimes, President Trump is silent. This deference that President Trump shows to Mr. Putin is troubling and, when combined with Russia's meddling in our election, it raises profound questions that need answers. That is why I strongly support the establishment of an independent commission to investigate Russia's interference in our political system, and I believe that the Justice Department must appoint a special counsel to investigate this matter as well. What the American people need to know, once and for all, is at least three things: No. 1, what specific actions Russia took to aid President Trump during the election; No. 2, whether U.S. persons had knowledge of or were involved in these actions; and, finally, No. 3, whether President Trump has financial entanglements with Russians associated with the Putin regime. You could probably add other questions, but I think they are the three basic questions we have to answer. So this is a grave problem with substantial national security implications. My constituents agree, as I am sure is the case in every other State. Just since January 1, more than 80,000 Pennsylvanians have written to my office about Russia. That is 80,000 Pennsylvanians. These are thoughtful letters from Pennsylvanians who are so concerned about this issue that they took the time to write. A constituent from Cumberland County, right in the middle of our State, wrote: I am bothered by the reports of Russia trying to interfere with our democracy. I am particularly bothered by a lack of transparency in the administration with news reports of AG Sessions' undisclosed contact with Russia. Russia is having the effect they wanted by shaking confidence in our system. That is a constituent from Cumberland County. Another constituent from Northampton County, along the eastern side of our State, just north of Philadelphia, wrote this: All politics aside, the investigation about Russia's actions is a concern to our republic. . . . Ultimately, it does not matter whether our elected officials are democrats or republicans, but it does matter that we all always put America's best interests first. If the warnings from the U.S. intelligence community and the pleas from 80,000-plus Pennsylvanians aren't enough, then let's look at the numerous credible reports of contact between Russian officials and the Trump team. This body of reporting grows every day. On January 18, McClatchy reported that ``The FBI and five other law enforcement and intelligence agencies have collaborated for months in an investigation into Russian attempts to influence the November election, including whether money from the Kremlin covertly aided President-elect Donald Trump, two people familiar with the matter said.'' On January 19, the Washington Post reported, ``U.S. counterintelligence officials are sifting through intercepted communications and financial data as part of a wider look at possible ties between the Russian government and associates of President-elect Donald Trump, officials said.'' Then again on January 19, the New York Times reported, ``American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.'' We know that Mr. Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, previously worked for the Russian-backed President of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovych. According to an August 2016 report by the New York Times, ``Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr. Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych's pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012, according to Ukraine's newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau.'' In February 2017, when confronted by the New York Times about reports that Trump associates may have been in contact with Russian officials during the election, Mr. Manafort said, ``It's not like these people wear badges that say, `I'm a Russian intelligence officer.' '' Then there is the case of a former member President Trump's foreign policy advisory committee, Carter Page. In September of 2016, Yahoo's Michael Isikoff reported, ``U.S. intelligence officials are seeking to determine whether an American businessman identified by Donald Trump as one of his foreign policy advisers has opened up private communications with senior Russian officials--including talks about the possible lifting of economic sanctions if the Republican nominee becomes president, according to multiple sources who have been briefed on the issue.'' In an interview with PBS's Judy Woodruff, Mr. Page was asked whether he met with Russian officials while he was on the Trump campaign. Ms. Woodruff asked, ``Did you have any meetings--I will ask again--did you have any meetings last year with Russian officials in Russia, outside Russia, anywhere?'' Mr. Page answered, ``I had no meetings, no meetings. I might have said hello to a few people as they were walking by me at my graduation--the graduation speech that I gave in July, but no meetings.'' Yet after USA Today reported that Mr. Page met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak at the Republican National Convention, Mr. Page told MSNBC's Chris Hayes that he would ``not deny'' meeting with the Russian Ambassador. Furthermore, reporting by both USA Today and CNN helped get to the bottom of one of the enduring mysteries of this summer's Republican National Convention: why was the effort to insert a provision into the party's platform supporting lethal aid for Ukraine defeated? Last summer, Mr. Manafort said that the decision to defeat the provision supporting lethal aid ``absolutely did not come from the Trump campaign.'' In January of 2017, the Washington Post's David Ignatius reported that President Trump's National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, engaged in discussions with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transition as then-President Obama was applying sanctions against Russia for its meddling in the U.S. elections. After the Russian Foreign Ministry vowed retaliation for the Obama administration sanctions, it was reported that several calls between Mr. Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak took place. The next day, President Putin announced he would not retaliate against the U.S. for the sanctions. The Nation was told by the Vice President that Mr. Flynn's contact with the Russian Ambassador was logistical in nature. Then it was revealed that the issue of sanctions may have been discussed. Subsequently, General Flynn resigned his position. Then, there is the issue of President Trump's associate, Roger Stone, who demonstrated in tweets last summer that he may have had advance knowledge of some of the hacked material. In October 2016, Mr. Stone admitted to a Miami TV station that he had ``back-channel communications with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.'' Mr. Assange is the founder of Wikileaks, the website that Russian hackers appear to have used to deposit hacked documents during the 2016 campaign. These revelations give credence to a February report by CNN: ``High- level advisers close to then-presidential nominee Donald Trump were in constant communication during the campaign with Russians known to US intelligence, multiple current and former intelligence, law enforcement and administration officials tell CNN.'' This summary is an illustrative list of many of the credible reports that are out there. Let's review just a few of the reports that have come to light since our intelligence agencies released their assessment. In November of 2016, the President's spokesman at that time said: ``The campaign had no contact with Russian officials,'' yet the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister had stated that ``there were contacts during the campaign.'' On January 19, the New York Times reported that the communications of President Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, his former foreign policy adviser, Carter Page, and his longtime associate, Roger Stone, were under investigation for contacts with the Russians. Yet despite that, President Trump continued to say for weeks that all of these reports about an investigation and contacts with Russian officials were so-called fake news. We have learned that the Trump administration's dismissals of these investigations and reports do not align with the facts. It seems that the administration has a strategy for all of these allegations--dodge and deceive, dodge and deceive. After all the dodging and deceiving, sometimes we finally get admissions of the truth. Again, the facts are disturbing and have meaningful national security implications. Here is an example of how these contacts may have actually changed policy. This past summer, ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked President Trump: Then why did you soften the GOP platform on Ukraine? Candidate Donald Trump responded: I wasn't involved in that. Honestly, I was not involved. In early March, USA Today reported that then-Trump advisers Carter Page and J.D. Gordon met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak at the Republican Convention. In an interview with CNN, Mr. Gordon said that the effort to remove support for lethal security assistance to Ukraine from the Republican Party platform was done expressly to fulfill the wishes of then-Candidate Trump. Now it is not uncommon for foreign officials to attend conventions. It is uncommon and completely, totally inappropriate for them to use that platform to shape our Nation's policies by a change in a party platform. The dodging and deception continues. After insisting during his confirmation hearing that he had no contacts with Russian officials, it was reported that Attorney General Sessions, who was a top leader in President Trump's campaign, did indeed meet with the Russian Ambassador. There is nothing to hide about meeting with a foreign ambassador. That is part of our job as Senators, and Attorney General Sessions was a Member of the U.S. Senate. For example, in 2013, I met with the Russian Ambassador to advocate for Pennsylvania families torn apart by the Russian Government's ban on international adoptions. I was there with a significant group of other Senators from both parties. But why would Mr. Sessions provide incorrect information to the Judiciary Committee, and why wouldn't he immediately correct the record? That is a question that we have to ask, and that is a question that deserves an answer. Finally, there is the issue of President Trump himself. We know that for many years he has expressed an interest in doing business in Russia. In 2008, Mr. Trump's executive vice president for acquisitions and development in his business said: Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets; say, in Dubai, and certainly with our project in SoHo and anywhere in New York. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia. So if one takes all of these reports together, plus the ones I have entered into the Record, one has to ask: What is going on? What is going on with all this information? That is why my constituents and I have questions. That is why we need an independent commission and a special counsel appointed by the Justice Department. The administration owes the American people answers. We cannot allow my constituent Pam's warning to come to fruition. We cannot allow Russia to exploit political differences to shake confidence in our democratic system. The United States has a proud tradition of rule of law and checks and balances. These are things that distinguish us from the autocratic and corrupt regimes around the world. The longer it takes to get to the bottom of these questions, the longer it will be until we can get back to advancing meaningful policies to resist Russian aggression and stand with our European allies. We need to make a commitment to maintaining and expanding sanctions on Russia for a variety of malign activities: No. 1, the cyber attack on our elections; No. 2, their--the Russians'-- indiscriminate bombing of civilians in support of the Assad regime in Syria; No. 3, their unabated support for separatists in eastern Ukraine; No. 4, the Russians' continued illegal annexation of Crimea. The American people and the people of Pennsylvania, as well, have had enough of dodge and deceive on these issues. They want answers, and the only way to get them is by way of an independent commission and a special counsel. The President and every Republican and every Democrat in the House and the Senate in all of Congress need to say once and for all, clearly, definitively, unequivocally: We will never allow this to happen again, and then work together to make that a reality. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Barbara Vachon, who retired this March after 16 years of service to the Senate. For as long as I have been in the Senate, with just a 2-month exception, Barb has served as my executive assistant and my right hand. Barb's service to the Senate began in 2001, when her friend Trecia called and offered her a temporary position in Senator Jim Jeffords' office. In New Hampshire at the time, Barb decided she would take a chance and try out life in Washington, DC. Barb thought she was coming down to Washington for a 2-month assignment, answering phones and staffing the front office until the office could hire someone right out of college, but Barb quickly became an invaluable member of Senator Jeffords' team. Eventually, she became the Senator's executive assistant, working alongside him every day until his retirement from the Senate in 2007. Barb's first year in the Senate included Senator Jeffords switching parties, 9/11, and the anthrax and ricin scares. Any one of these events might have given a different person a reason to leave the Senate, but Barb stayed and worked as hard as ever. When Senator Jeffords retired in 2007, Barb helped Senator Bernie Sanders' office learn the ways of the Senate for 2 months, after which she joined my office. From day 1, Barb was always the person who made the trains run on time in my office. Barb had the challenging and sometimes impossible task of keeping my day on schedule, while at the same time juggling phone calls, personal notes, briefing memos, and any number of inquiries that came across her desk. There were even a few times where she managed to track down particularly old and rare library books at my request. No matter the task at hand, Barb approached her work with good humor and a can-do attitude that impressed everyone. Barb's contributions in my Senate office are immeasurable, but I thought it was worth trying to quantify some of the ways in which she has served the people of Pennsylvania and our Nation. During her decade of service to Pennsylvania, Barb welcomed more than 200 ambassadors, dignitaries, and administration officials to my office, drafted more than 500 letters, and greeted over 1,000 Pennsylvanians at my ``Keystone Coffees.'' She acted as a mentor and support system for all my staff members, and befriended everyone she worked with in the Senate. Everyone, from the Capitol Police officers she passed on her 3- block commute, to the photographers in the Senate Photo Studio who patiently waited while Barb shepherded our constituents for photos, knows how valued Barb was to our team and to me personally. Having been in the Senate long before I was, Barb understood how to balance the everyday needs in the office with the overall goals we set for ourselves when we first began our service here. Barb provided everyone in my office, myself included, with the important perspective that is often lost here in the Senate: it is easy to get bogged down in details or small problems, but the work we do here is important, lasting, and honorable. Barb never lost sight of how fortunate we are to work in this institution, and I know our team is grateful to have always had that reminder. It is hard to imagine my office without Barb, but I know she will enjoy her retirement, whether she is home in New Hampshire or traveling the world. I wish her and her children, Heather and Michael, well in this new chapter.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Cantwell for raising the issue about the impact of this decision that the Congress will make with regard to a particular healthcare bill and then also, particularly, the Medicaid consequences. I was just looking at what is a 2-page report that was just produced today and that I was just handed from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. It is State specific. In this case, looking at the data from Pennsylvania--I will not go through all of the data on Medicaid--just imagine that three different groups of Americans have benefited tremendously from the Medicaid Program every day. That is why what is happening in the House is of great concern to us. We have in Pennsylvania, for example--just in the number of Pennsylvanians who have a disability--722,000 Pennsylvanians with disabilities who rely upon Medical Assistance for their medical care. Medical Assistance is our State program that is in partnership with Medicaid. There are 261,000 Pennsylvania seniors who get their healthcare through Medicaid. Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people who happen to be over the age of 65 or who happen to have a disability of one kind or another are totally reliant, on most days, on Medicaid. The third group, of course, is the children, and 33 percent of all of the births in Pennsylvania are births that are paid for through Medicaid. When we talk about this bill that is being considered in the House or when we talk about the confirmation vote for the Administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, this is real life. What happens to this legislation and what happens on this nomination is about real life for people who have very little in the way of a bright future if we allow some here to do what they would like to do, apparently, to Medicaid. It sounds very benign to say that you want to cap something or that you want to block-grant. They are fairly benign terms. They are devastating in their impact, and we cannot allow it to happen. That is why this debate is so critical. I have more to say, but I do commend and salute the work by Senator Cantwell, Senator Stabenow, and Senator Wyden in fighting these battles. I will read just portions of a letter that I received from a mom in Coatesville, in Southeast Pennsylvania, about her son, Rowan. The mom's name is Pam. She wrote to us about her son, who is on the autism spectrum. In this case, she is talking about the benefits of Medicaid-- Medical Assistance we call it in Pennsylvania. Here is what she wrote in talking about the benefits that he receives. After he was enrolled in the program, she said that Rowan had the benefit of having a behavioral specialist consultant. That is one expert who was helping Rowan, who was really struggling at one point. A second professional they had helping him was a therapeutic staff support worker. So there was real expertise to help a 5-year-old child get through life with autism. Here is what his mom Pam wrote in talking about, since he was enrolled, how much he has benefited and how much he has grown and progressed: He benefited immensely from the CREATE program by the Child Guidance Resource Centers, [which is a local program in Coatesville]. Thankfully, it is covered in full by Medicaid. She goes on to write the following, and I will conclude with this: Without Medicaid, I am confident I could not work full time to support our family. We would be bankrupt, and my son would go without the therapies he sincerely needs. Here is how Pam concludes the letter. She asks me, as her representative--as her Senator--to think about her and her family when we are deliberating about a nomination like this and about healthcare legislation. She writes: Please think of us when you are making these decisions. Please think about my 9-month-old daughter, Luna, who smiles and laughs at her brother, Rowan, daily. She will have to care for Rowan later in life after we are gone. Overall, we are desperately in need of Rowan's Medical Assistance and would be devastated if we lost these benefits. This is real life for people. Sometimes it is far too easy here in Washington for people to debate as if these things are theoretical-- that if you just cut a program or cap a program or block-grant a program, you are just kind of moving numbers around and moving policy around. This is of great consequence to these families, and we have to remember that when we are making decisions around here. Everyone who works in this building as an employee of the Federal Government gets healthcare. We do not have someone else around the country who is debating whether or not we are going to have healthcare, like those families on Medicaid are having to endure. I thank the Senator from Washington. I know that Senator Stabenow from Michigan may have more to add on this. We have a big battle ahead, but this is a battle that is not only worth fighting, but it is absolutely essential that we win the battle to protect and support Medicaid.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a few comments about the House Republican bill that was just unveiled yesterday. Those who have been promoting it or those who have been working on this issue for a couple of weeks are claiming it is a new healthcare plan or a new comprehensive healthcare proposal--in essence, by their argument, a replacement if the Affordable Care Act were repealed. I disagree. I don't believe in any way it is a plan. It might be a bill, but I think a better description of it in terms of its impact would be that it is a scheme, not a plan. It is a scheme that will roll back coverage gains from the Affordable Care Act, which is better known by a longer name: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Kaiser--one of the great institutions that track healthcare data and healthcare policy--told us that there are 156 million Americans with employer-sponsored coverage. Those Americans didn't have much protection before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act with regard to preexisting conditions or annual lifetime limits--a whole series of protections for people that were not there before that. This scheme, as I am calling it, will not only roll back coverage gains in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, in the process it will also devastate the Medicaid Program, leaving many of the most vulnerable Americans behind. Another impact of this scheme will be to increase costs for middle- class families while cutting taxes for millionaires or multimillionaires as well as big corporations. It will raise the cost of care for older Americans and substantially cut funding for hospitals in rural communities. How did we get there, and where are we going based upon the House Republican proposal? Last night the Republicans released their bill to ``replace'' the Affordable Care Act, and the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee will be marking up the bill tomorrow. I guess it doesn't require much reading to get to a markup tomorrow. Usually when you introduce a bill, the bill is reviewed by Members of Congress. There is some public debate on it. There is some back-and- forth. And then a period of time later, maybe weeks, there is a markup. The committee engages in a thorough review of the bill, and the markup means they make changes. They add amendments or try to alter the bill in one way or another. That is a serious approach when you do this work of legislating on a serious issue. Healthcare is about as serious and difficult an issue as there is. I think it should be accorded the serious review that the complexity and the consequence of this issue demand. This is not a serious proposal. It is a scheme, but it is also not a serious process that the House seems to be focused on right now. This process means the House will mark up this bill within I guess about 48 hours of it being unveiled, maybe less than 48 hours. That means there will not be a single hearing on the bill or getting the bill scored, which is a fancy Washington word for having someone tell us what it costs. There will be no thorough review, no serious review on such a monumental issue called healthcare and what happens to hundreds of millions of Americans. At the same time, the markup will proceed with lightning speed, and there will not be any information on the record about an analysis of the bill that is thorough and serious, and of course we will not know how to pay for it and we will not have the score that will tell us how it will be paid for and what the cost will be. It is hard to come up with the words, but the impact of this bill would be a disaster. If you are a millionaire and up, you are doing quite well under this bill. You are going to get a bonanza from this bill. You are going to have a great payday. If you are a child or you happen to be a senior or if you are a woman or if you are an individual with a disability or a chronic disease, you are out of luck. You are in big trouble. I would hope that those Americans would have the benefit of a serious review of a serious issue. If the bill is not serious, I guess they are going to ram it through. We will see what happens in the next couple of days. There is one analysis that should be on the record. There are some that are hot off the presses. This is a report released today that I am looking at. It is about 2\1/2\ pages. They know the vote will take place soon in the committee--two committees, maybe in the House. This report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is moving quickly to keep up with the fast pace at which the bill is proceeding. I won't read the whole report, and I won't enter the whole report into the Record; I am sure people can go online and look at it. Here is the title of the report: ``House GOP Medicaid Provisions Would Shift $370 billion in costs to states over a decade.'' It is written by Edwin Park, who has been writing about Medicaid for a long time. Few Americans know more about Medicaid than Edwin Park and people like him who study it. I will read the first sentence, which gives you the basics of it: ``The new House Republican health plan would shift an estimated $370 billion in Medicaid costs to states over the next ten years, effectively ending the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) Medicaid expansion for 11 million people while also harming tens of millions of additional seniors, people with disabilities, and children and parents who rely upon Medicaid today.'' That is the opening line of this proposal, which I believe is a scheme. What does that mean for Medicaid? One of the basic debates we will have here is what happens to Medicaid itself, and we will have a lot of debates about other aspects of the implications for the Affordable Care Act. Here is what it means. It means that 70 million Americans who rely upon Medicaid--again, they are children in urban areas, children in rural areas, children in small towns who get their healthcare from Medicaid. It is a lot of individuals with disabilities, a lot of children with disabilities who benefit from Medicaid. It is also, of course, pregnant women, as well as seniors trying to get into nursing homes, because we know that a lot of seniors can't get into a nursing home unless they have the benefits of Medicaid. The idea in the bill on Medicaid that is objectionable, among other objections I have, is a so- called per capita cap. This idea limits Federal contributions to a fixed amount. If the caps are not tied to overall increases in healthcare spending, the net effect is fewer healthcare dollars over time so they can afford the tax cuts they want to have as part of this scheme. We have heard a lot around here about flexibility, that States want more flexibility when it comes to Medicaid. I will tell you what they don't want. They don't want a flexibility argument to be a scheme that results in cuts to those States, where the Federal Government says: Here is a block grant that may increase or may not, but good luck, States, as you balance your budgets. Of course, Governors and State legislators balance their budgets, and they have very difficult choices to make--sometimes choices the Federal Government never makes. That is why some Republican Governors took advantage of the Medicaid expansion and expanded healthcare to a lot of people in their States. That is one of the reasons they are worried about--and some will oppose this idea of so-called per capita caps or block-granting of Medicaid or the like. If we have a proposal to cut $370 billion from the House, what does that mean for some of those groups that I just mentioned earlier? Well, we know that more than 45 percent of all the births in the United States of America are paid for by Medicaid, so that is a consequence for pregnant women and their children. One in five seniors receives Medicaid assistance by way of the benefit to someone trying to get into a nursing home. Medicaid also pays for home-based care for seniors and, of course, long-term care as well. What if you have a disability? Over one-third of the Nation's adults with disabilities who require extensive services and support are covered by Medicaid. We know that in a State like mine--because we had a Republican Governor embrace the Medicaid expansion, and then we had a Democratic Governor embrace it and really develop it and bring it to where it is today--we have expansion of Medicaid that resulted in some 700,000--that is not an exact number, but it is approaching 700,000 Pennsylvanians gaining coverage through the Medicaid expansion. And 62 percent of Americans who gained coverage through the Medicaid expansion are working. So we are talking about a lot of families and a lot of individuals who are working and getting their healthcare through Medicaid. That opportunity presented itself because, in the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid was expanded. There are lots of numbers we could talk about. I will give maybe two more. Medicaid is the primary payer for mental health and substance abuse treatment. Medicaid expansion enabled 180,000 Pennsylvanians to receive these lifesaving services. If you are a Member of Congress and you have been going home and talking about the opioid crisis--and to say it is a crisis is a terrible understatement. It has devastated small towns and rural areas. It has devastated cities. It has destroyed families. We know how bad it is. Some of the numbers indicate it is getting worse, not leveling off. If you say you care about that and you supported the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act as a Member of Congress and you supported the funding that was in the 21st Century Cures Act at the end of the year, and you say you are working toward help for communities devastated by the opioid crisis, it is OK to say that, but you can't then say: But I want to support the House Republican proposal on Medicaid, when Medicaid is the primary payer for these substance abuse treatment programs. I mentioned before adults and children with disabilities. Medicaid covers 60 percent of children with disabilities. We know the range of that--ranging from autism to Down syndrome, to traumatic brain injury, and many other disabilities or circumstances that I have not mentioned. For a lot of people, this is real life. It is not some theory that gets kicked around Washington, often by people who have good healthcare coverage as they are talking about cutting healthcare for others. We have a lot of testimony from what we might want to call the real world. One of the most compelling pieces of correspondence I received in my time in the Senate was from a mom about her son. Her name is Pam. She is from Coatesville, PA. That is in Southeastern Pennsylvania, within the range of suburban Philadelphia. She wrote to tell me how important Medicaid is to her family and to tell me about her 5-year-old son Rowan. She sent me a picture of Rowan with a firefighter's hat on. Of course, he is fascinated, as we all are, by the heroic work of firefighters. Her story--I will not go through her whole letter, but she got news a couple of years ago that many parents get in the course of the lives of their children. She got news in March of 2015 that her son Rowan was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. The diagnosis was made by a psychologist who worked for the Intermediate Unit-- meaning the institution that works for the school districts and helps to provide special education. Rowan continued in the preschool program and daycare program before and after school, but then Pam goes on to say: I was never able to find a daycare suitable for all of Rowan's needs. In late January of 2016, I applied for [Medical Assistance]. I will stop there for a moment to explain. Medical Assistance is the State share of the State end of the Medicare Program. We call it Medical Assistance. Other States have a different name for it. Pam said she applied for Medical Assistance: After Rowan was awarded this assistance we were able to obtain wrap-around services, which included a Behavioral Specialist Consultant . . . and a Therapeutic Staff Support worker. Pam goes on to say, and I am quoting her again: Without Medical Assistance, I am confident that I could not work full time to support our family. . . . [We] would be bankrupt and my son would go without the therapies he needs. These are the therapies I just mentioned. Then Pam goes on to say, urging me as one of her two Senators to focus on her son, focus on her family when we are casting votes and having debates about policies that relate to healthcare and Medicaid. Here is what Pam asked me to do as her Senator: Please think of Rowan. . . . My 9-month-old Luna, who smiles and laughs at her brother, she will have to care for Rowan late in her life after we are gone. We are desperately in need of Rowan's Medical Assistance and would be devastated if we lost these benefits. So said Pam about her son and about the importance of the Medical Assistance Program, which is known on the national level as Medicaid. I would hope that those in the House, as they are quickly marking up legislation that would have a huge impact on families like Pam's and many more--I would hope they would think of Rowan, think of his little sister Luna and what her challenges might be years from now when she would likely have to care for Rowan and answer some of Pam's questions. There are a lot of questions that we have about policy and numbers and budget impacts, and they are all appropriate. But some of the most important questions we have to answer for those who are asking them are questions that our constituents are asking. And one of those is Pam. We have to be responsive to her concerns about her son and the challenges her son faces. I hope, in the midst of debate, in the midst of very rapid consideration of a complicated subject on a bill that has been slapped together--in my judgment, too quickly--that Pam's concerns would be an uppermost priority in the minds of those who are working on this legislation. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise today, as I have every year that I have been in the Senate, which is quite a long time now--the last 10 years, going into 11--to give some remarks in commemoration of Black History Month. The way I have done that, and the way our office has done it, is to recognize a special figure in my home State of Pennsylvania, an individual who we are very proud of. Today we honor Dr. Constance E. Clayton, a trailblazing figure whose career in education positively impacted the lives of countless children in Philadelphia, and whose work continues to pay dividends in the city public schools to this day. Throughout her long career as a teacher and administrator in the Philadelphia School District, Dr. Clayton never lost sight of her mission. In her words: ``The children come first.'' A product of Philadelphia public schools, Dr. Clayton became the first African American and the first woman to serve as superintendent of the Philadelphia School District. This Black History Month, we celebrate Dr. Clayton's place in that history, but as we do, we should also ask ourselves if we are living up to her legacy and if we are putting the children first--all children everywhere first. I will be seeing Dr. Clayton today and so many of her friends. The rules don't allow me to acknowledge anyone else in the Chamber. So I will do that later. But I do want her to know how much we appreciate her giving us this much time to pay tribute to her and to her work. Connie Clayton's story is a great American story. Born to a plumber and social worker, she was raised by her mother and grandmother after her parents divorced when she was just 2 years old. She attended Paul Lawrence Dunbar Elementary School in Philadelphia. Her mind, like that of so many children, was awakened by a special teacher. In her case, it was her fourth grade teacher at Dunbar, whose name she still readily recalls--Ms. Alice Spotwood. She remembers that Ms. Spotwood was kind, and she made learning fun. She also remembers that Ms. Spotwood seemed interested in her individually, even as she was interested in every other child in that classroom. Ms. Spotwood made Connie feel special. Connie Clayton went on to attend Jay Cook Junior High School and Philadelphia High School for Girls, where she excelled academically. She thought she wanted to be a doctor, even taking 4 years of Latin at Girls High School on the theory that she would need to decipher dated medical jargon. Her enthusiasm waned when she realized that calling a body a corpus didn't make studying its contents any more appealing. She chose, instead, to focus on the mind, earning her bachelor's degree and her master of education degree from Temple University, before going on to her doctorate of education in educational leadership from the University of Pennsylvania, where she was a Rockefeller scholar. Dr. Constance E. Clayton recognized that education--her education-- was what empowered her to succeed. It started at Dunbar, where teachers like Ms. Spotwood first taught her to raise her sights and to reach out and to believe. So it is no coincidence that her first step in her professional life was to go back to Dunbar and return the favor. She took a role as a student teacher alongside many of the same people who taught her before she could imagine that the letters ``Ph.D'' would follow her name or that the title ``Superintendent'' would someday precede it. In 1955, Dr. Clayton got her first full-time teaching job at Philadelphia's Harrison Elementary School, where she taught fifth grade social studies. Grounded in that personal mission that children come first, Dr. Clayton's years as a teacher revealed a unique gift for understanding children, their specific challenges and their particular needs. This is no doubt why, in the years that followed, she earned a role in developing the social studies curriculum for the entire district and led an effort to develop and train teachers to implement a Black history curriculum throughout the school district. Dr. Clayton recalls understanding that for students at a predominantly Black school in Philadelphia, it is Black History Month every day, every month, and they need to see their lived experience reflected in the course material because they didn't see many white picket fences where they were growing up. To paraphrase Carter Woodson, often known as the father of Black history himself: Kids need to learn, not just about Black history but about Black people in American history. Dr. Clayton recalls the reward of watching kids excited to learn that they, too, could be a painter, an author, an astronaut or whatever they wanted, and of watching the limits of those children's imaginations dissolve before their eyes. Dr. Clayton didn't limit her own imagination either. In 1972, she was named executive director and associate superintendent of early childhood education programs for the Philadelphia School District. Early childhood education is an issue dear to my own heart, as the sponsor of legislation here in the Senate to ensure universal early education nationwide. We know that the stakes for this issue are high. Early learning increases future income. It reduces the chance of arrest or incarceration, and it also reduces reliance on social services. Under Dr. Clayton's leadership, the Philadelphia School District expanded and enhanced its early education program into a national model. Connie Clayton's passion for helping children and her competence did not go unnoticed. In 1982, she was chosen as superintendent of the Philadelphia School District, the first African American and the first woman to hold that role. She knew the expectation would be high, but her mother always told her: ``Delete the word `can't' from your vocabulary.'' So Connie hit the ground running hard, declaring in the press conference where she accepted the job that motto that would come to define her tenure: ``The children come first.'' I have often said that there is a light inside of every child, and it is the obligation of adults, especially elected officials, to make sure that this light shines brightly to the full measure of its potential. We know that from day one as superintendent, Dr. Connie Clayton knew her job was to nurture this light. But as a product of segregated education herself, she understood that our system doesn't always allow every light to shine equally bright. High minority schools often receive less funding, often have less experienced teachers, and often offer fewer high-level math and science courses. We know still today that this is true. Black K-12 students are almost four times as likely as White students to receive an out-of- school suspension and almost twice as likely to be expelled. Black students represent 16 percent of the public school population today but 42 percent of the population of justice facility education programs. Connie Clayton refused to simply curse the darkness of these numbers. She worked to change them. She knew that an enlightened mind can empower students to overcome the traps laid by cynicism, indifference, and underfunding--to slip the bounds of low expectation, beat the odds, and then turn around and work to change them. A good education can take that light inside and make it flare. She might have asked, and we still are asking: What, then, is a good education? Can some combination of facts and numbers alone contain this transformative power of education? Well, W.E.B. Du Bois said: ``Education must not simply teach work--it must teach life.'' Dr. Clayton understood this in all of its implications, both clear and subtle. She knew it was clear that a good education starts with an open school. In the 5 years preceding Dr. Clayton's term as superintendent, there were five teacher strikes in Philadelphia that cost students 1,000 days in the classroom. But during her 11 years in office, there wasn't a single strike. She knew it was clear that a good education requires funding. When she came in, the Philadelphia School District was facing a crushing $90 million deficit. When she left, it was running a surplus, and she had created financial partnerships with area businesses, all without closing a single school. Dr. Clayton knew it was clear that a good education comes from a good curriculum. When she came in, she noticed the school district had stopped teaching algebra. When she left as superintendent, she fostered a partnership with local university professors to teach the subject of algebra to a voluntary class that grew from 9 kids the first year to over 1,900. She implemented a free breakfast program because she knew that students from certain parts of the district might not be able to get food in the morning. We know, as she knew well, that hungry kids cannot learn. She reinstated summer school because she knew that a few credits here or there can mean the difference between a diploma and a dropout, and in that difference lay the blueprints to divergent lives. She treated her schools like second homes for children because she remembered, from all of her years of teaching, how the vast majority of parents wanted more for their kids than they were able to provide and that they just needed some help in filling the gaps. She took just 1 week of vacation in 11 years as superintendent--that has to be some kind of national record--and just 1 day of vacation in her many years of teaching before that, because she felt not just a passion for her work but an urgency to see its results. Dr. Clayton had a sense of urgency about educating these children, in the same way it was urgent for the followers of Sojourner Truth in the 19th century. It was urgent for the students in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, known as SNCC, in the 20th century. They had that urgency. It has been urgent for all the ordinary lives before, between, and since. It was urgent for little Hannah A. Lions, a girl studying in Philadelphia in the 1830s whose family saved her school copybook as ``proof that there were some educated [Black] people back when'' and donated this copybook to the recently opened National Museum of African American History and Culture here in Washington, where it sits on display. It was as urgent, of course, for Dr. Constance Clayton, when she attended segregated schools in the same city some 100 years after Hannah. That is because a good education is not just some combination of numbers and facts. It is enlightenment for a mind constrained, freedom for a soul repressed, and a passport to a future that transcends artificial limitations and unleashes potential. Dr. Clayton worked feverishly to put one of those passports in the pockets of each student who passed through the Philadelphia schools under her watch. Her passion and her vision earned her a reputation as a reformer whom the New York Times wrote led an ``educational renaissance'' in Philadelphia. She would do whatever it took to make schools better for her students. She pushed the district to meet the goals of the America 2000 Program, an ambitious plan to significantly increase the achievements of urban school districts across the country. She instituted the Homeless Student Initiative, a successful program to provide continuity in education and a level of consistent support to the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of homeless children in the district enduring the daily hardships of life in shelters. Connie worked to desegregate schools and made sure the district was providing employment opportunities to minority candidates. Several years into her administration, the executive director of the Council of Great City Schools remarked of Dr. Clayton's tenure as superintendant: ``Looking at an array of programs carried out in Philadelphia, you will see almost every innovative reform that has been proposed in urban schools.'' So it is no surprise that Dr. Clayton received all manner of awards and honors. Let me mention a few: the Dr. Constance E. Clayton Chair in Urban Education at the Graduate School of Education at the University of Pennsylvania, which was named in her honor--the first endowed professorship in the United States to be named after an African- American woman. She received the Distinguished Daughters of Pennsylvania Award and the Humanitarian Service Award from the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations, as well as the 2008 Star Community Commitment in Education Award from the Philadelphia Education Fund, just to name a few. She has received honorary doctorates from 17 colleges and universities, not to mention being a visiting professor at Harvard Graduate School of Education. I could go on and on today. She currently serves as trustee of the Philadelphia Museum of Art, chairing the African and Afro-American Collections and Exhibits Committee and is a life member of the Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, where she has served in multiple leadership roles. Connie Clayton's life has been a life of service. We know that in our State capitol--the building has the following inscription: ``All public service is a trust given in faith and accepted in honor.'' Dr. Clayton honored the trust of public service. She validated the faith that the parents of all those students placed in her to carry out that trust, and she always put schoolchildren first. So on behalf of those students and their parents and everyone else her work touched in the course of her long career, it is my distinct privilege to honor Dr. Constance E. Clayton in celebration of Black History Month on the Senate floor today. I want to convey our gratitude for her devotion to education and, of course, to the children of Philadelphia. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.