Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I would ask consent to speak for up to 5 minutes before the vote.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise tonight to talk about the Inflation Reduction Act. I am limited on time. I will try to keep within my 5 minutes. I wanted to start by just kind of providing a brief summary. This is legislation that will do a number of things, all of which are helpful to American families and the American economy. First of all, it will lower the cost of prescription drugs for seniors. It will, in fact, lower the cost of energy, the prices people pay for energy. On the prescription drug front, we talk about lowering costs and empowering Medicare, for the first time, to begin to negotiate for lower prices. It also caps the out-of-pocket costs that Medicare beneficiaries pay at $2,000. In Pennsylvania, the estimate is that there are more than 73,000 Pennsylvanians that pay more than $2,000 a year for prescription drugs. Every one of those 73,000-plus Pennsylvanians and more will benefit from capping out-of-pocket costs. It lowers costs for families, but it also reduces the threat of climate change and reduces the deficit at the same time--all of that while reducing emissions between now and 2030 by some 40 percent. And this may be the very last time--the very last time--that we have an opportunity to take action in a substantial way against the threat of climate change. The Presiding Officer has worked on this issue for years. He knows of what I speak better than anyone. This may be the last chance to take action on climate change. Thirdly, and not by way of a complete summary, it extends the Affordable Care Act subsidies--the subsidies that were provided in the American Rescue Plan, the enhanced subsidies and premium tax credits. Those subsidies will be extended to 2025. Again, I will personalize it to Pennsylvania. This directly affects at least 100,000 people. Sixty thousand people in our State will lose all of their insurance coverage if we don't pass this bill; another 40,000 will have their subsidies taken away; and several hundred thousand will have their premiums go up. It affects 100,000 people directly and several hundred thousand people directly or indirectly. Then, of course, this bill creates millions and millions of jobs over the 10 years that the bill has been measured. After we pass the Inflation Reduction Act, which will reduce inflation--that is what we are told by some 126 economists. Larry Summers and others have said the same thing. It will fight inflation in the ways that have already been spoken about. But after we pass this bill, this strong bill for the American economy and for American families, we have more work to do. We have to continue our work to pass legislation to invest in home- and community-based services for seniors and people with disabilities. We have to invest in childcare and institute again what we did in the American Rescue Plan when we put dollars in the pockets of American families raising children by taking the Child Tax Credit and enhancing that Child Tax Credit. We have to invest in prekindergarten education and paid family leave. We have to invest and protect the Medicaid program and extend it. We have so much more to do. I will just spend my remaining minutes talking about one issue, the issue I started with on that list, the home- and community-based services issue. This is an issue that people across the country have come to talk to us about--about a senior or loved one that they want to have home care and can't get it because they are on the waiting list as it is approaching a million people or a person with a disability who wants that same kind of care in the home or in the community. I met a lot of people and listened to them and listened to their stories. Two come to mind in particular: Someone who needs that care-- his name is Brandon Kingsmore--and his caregiver Lynn Weidner. I visited Brandon's home with Lynn there and learned firsthand what they are up against every single day in that home. Some months later, Brandon had the chance to meet with the President in my hometown of Scranton. One thing that he said about Lynn as a caregiver and caregivers overall--he said the following. He said: I would not be able to have the life that I have without Lynn's help. [Caregivers] give us a substantial life. That is what one Pennsylvanian said about the care he receives. Every family should have that opportunity to have care in the home or in the community, and they can't get that under current law. The only option for most families is care in a nursing home or other institutional care. If someone wants that care, that is great. A lot of those nursing homes do really good work. But here is the problem. So many Americans should have the right to have care in their home, and they don't have that opportunity today. We have to pass legislation to do that. The Better Care Better Jobs bill does that. Jobs for home care workers--we have to get that pay up. We can't be a Nation that claims to be the greatest country in the world and pay home care workers just $12 an hour. That is not going to provide the care that our families need. This bill is about jobs for home care workers; care, obviously, for seniors and people with disabilities; and support for family caregivers. More than 50 million Americans--more than 50 million Americans--are providing care to a loved one. They are saving us money by doing that--saving the Nation money--but they are caring for a family member out of an act of love. We have to help them a lot more than we do. The last two more points I will make are: We can decide to go forward and just say your only option as a senior or a person with disability is to go to a nursing home or an institutional setting. If we continue to do that, the cost of that is $90,000 per person; or we can invest in home- and community-based services and not pay $90,000 per person, but we can pay just $26,000 per American for that kind of care. So it has a huge cost benefit as well as the compelling moral argument that we should provide these opportunities. This bill we are going to pass tonight or tomorrow morning or whenever we pass it is a good bill for families--lowering costs, helping seniors with prescription drugs, and really moving forward on action against climate change. After it has passed, we are going to continue to work on these other issues. I want to end with this. I want to thank members of my staff who have particularly worked so hard the last 18 months on a range of issues but, in particular, the ones who work on home- and community-based services and will continue that fight with us: Stacy Sanders, Michael Gamel-McCormick, Narda Ipakchi, Josh Kramer, and so many others who have done good work, just like so many members of staffs of so many Senators here tonight. But let's get the Inflation Reduction Act passed tonight, and let's move forward on these other issues in the months ahead. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the nomination of Robert Gordon. Earlier this year, Mr. Gordon had strong bipartisan support in the Finance Committee when his nomination came to a vote. Mr. Gordon is President Biden's nominee to serve as the Department of Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources, and he has a long history of dedication to public service. More recently, he served as director of the Department of Health and Human Services for the State of Michigan. He played a central role in the State's pandemic response and managed an agency of 14,000 employees and a multibillion-dollar budget. Before that, he held senior roles in the U.S. Department of Education and the Office of Management and Budget, where he championed evidence- based policymaking to use taxpayer dollars wisely. Earlier in his career, Mr. Gordon served as a senior official at the New York City Department of Education. He was a senior aide on Capitol Hill, a law clerk for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and a White House aide. In his time at the White House, he supported the development of the AmeriCorps program. In his long career in public service, he has worked to ensure that government programs work for those they serve and that they do so through responsible use of taxpayer dollars. Such experience is essential to the work of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources at the Department of Health and Human Services. HHS has responsibility for critical programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program, just to name a few. The Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources must ensure that these programs and many others under the umbrella of the Department remain strong for future generations. I ask unanimous consent that, as if in executive session, the Senate consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 762, Robert Michael Gordon, to be Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services; that the Senate vote on the nomination, without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I want to respond, at least preliminarily, to my friend from Tennessee. I appreciate his advocacy for hospitals in his home State of Tennessee. So given that he is seeking this assurance about these disproportionate share hospital payments, my understanding is that the reconciliation bill we are about to consider this week does not contain any provisions that are directly relevant and any provision that would impact these disproportionate share hospitals or uncompensated care pool funding. So given that and given that he is seeking this specific assurance about the pending reconciliation bill--and I think it is evident or will become evident that the bill does not contain these DSH provisions or uncompensated care payment cuts--I would ask him just this question, if he would entertain this question: If the Senate does pass a reconciliation bill, which I hope will be by the end of this week, and that bill is then subsequently enacted into law, will he lift his objection and allow this and other relevant HHS nominations to be confirmed by unanimous consent?

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business for debate only, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I am pleased that Democrats have come together to address the costs of prescription drugs and to lower Affordable Care Act health care premiums for Americans. I strongly support a negotiation process for prescription drugs that will enable the voices of affected stakeholders, especially older adults, patients and people with disabilities, communities of color, and other marginalized groups, to play an integral role and inform the development and oversight of Medicare drug negotiations. The Department of Health and Human Services has the authority to ensure affected stakeholders provide input about the potential for drugs to achieve outcomes that improve their quality of life. I view the Inflation Reduction Act as an opportunity to put older adults, people with disabilities and patients in front of the process so those affected, especially those historically excluded from the data used to make decisions, are at the table as the Department of Health and Human Services negotiates prices and advances the health equity goals we all share.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I object for the same narrow reason, which is that the Democratic side has not had the opportunity to review this amendment. We will do that on both this amendment and the prior amendment and see where we are. On that basis, I object. I will also add for the record, on the debate overall, I think my friend is expressing a real concern that both sides have. It is not as if we just arrived here today to start talking about this issue. As I have said for months now, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, in a bipartisan way, and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, in a bipartisan way, have been working on these issues. So to suggest that somehow the debate just started today and that neither side is doing enough, I think is not accurate. Both sides are concerned about this. Both Houses and both parties are very concerned about it. It is a real crisis. The FDA should be held accountable. As I said earlier, it should be hit hard for this, but we can't compromise safety standards, and that is the reason for my objection.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I object, in this case, on much more limited grounds. Here is the reason: The Senator from Utah is trying to work something out here, and we appreciate that. The Democratic side has not had the opportunity yet to review this amendment so we would seek, in the interest of comity, more time to review it. And on that basis, I object.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I object. Let me walk through why. My friend from Utah, in the spirit to try to work something out here, is offering a counterproposal. The problem that I have with this is the amendment--now we are talking about the Department of Agriculture, which plays a role here. I will get to that in a moment. But in this case, the amendment would direct this Agency, the Department of Agriculture, to allow formula to be included in the Women, Infants, and Children's nutrition program that does not meet USDA standards. So now, we have a concern that I initially raised about FDA standards. Now, we have USDA standards for safety and nutritional adequacy. I would also add that this amendment is unnecessary because of action that was taken by the leaders of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. That committee passed a bipartisan bill, the Access to Baby Formula Act, that the President just signed into law. This already provides the Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, with the discretion it needs to expand the products available to WIC parents and babies--right now that is the law--while also continuing to meet those high nutritional needs of the babies. So, again, the concerns here are standards--safety standards--for those infants.

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise to object to the Senator from Utah's request. I understand his concern and the concern of the people in both parties, both sides of the aisle here in the Senate, to take action on this infant formula challenge that so many families are suffering through right now. The unfortunate part about this proposal is that this will put babies at risk in ways that we don't even fully understand right now. There is bipartisan concern, and the evidence for that is the action of committees--bipartisan work in several committees, including the Agriculture Committee as well as the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee--bipartisan work to meet this crisis. And the focus of that work has been to get formula on shelves as soon as possible. It is important to remember how our Nation's formula crisis began. Abbott's recall--the manufacturer--the recall and the closure came after as many as nine infants died from contaminated formula. That is how this started, contaminated formula. Now, we can and we should get to the bottom of the abject failures that led to contaminated formula hitting the shelves. I have been working on this for months--many months before this crisis came to a head--but we can't forget our top priority here when it comes to protecting infants. We have got to keep our Nation's most vulnerable, these infants, safe. And it is pretty clear that the Food and Drug Administration bears responsibility for dropping the ball in so many ways in terms of inspections, but still, even despite that failure, the FDA standards are the best in the world. As I mentioned, the Agriculture and HELP Committees have already done bipartisan work. And I think when you saw the hearings that took place, especially in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, there was bipartisan condemnation of the Food and Drug Administration and bipartisan calls for accountability at the Food and Drug Administration. And they should be hit very hard in terms of the accountability that should be imposed and must be imposed on the FDA. Unfortunately, this bill will completely disregard the FDA standards for safety which would put our children at risk. I would also mention the HELP Committee's work marking up a bill last week, an FDA bill, with amendments allowing importation during the shortage with appropriate guardrails to ensure formula is safe for our Nation's infants. These bipartisan amendments represent a more appropriate path forward than this approach today to limit the FDA's ability to protect our infants. Now is not the time to completely abandon safety standards. We need to do everything we can to get formula back on shelves, but we can't compromise safety at any cost. Here are just some examples. Go to the FDA's website under the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Here are a few examples from their database. In July 2016, a 4-week-old baby in the United States was fed a stage 1 infant milk product approved in nearly all the countries described in the Senator's bill but not in the United States. After consuming the formula, the baby experienced diarrhea, fever, vomiting, and lethargy. The baby ended up in the emergency room where he was diagnosed with a salmonella infection. Second example, January 2017: A 1-month-old baby was similarly poisoned by a product approved by the countries in this bill but not legally marketed in the United States, and that baby began vomiting. In January 2019, a 5-month-old began experiencing upper abdominal pain and diarrhea after consuming another such product. That is just a small example. These concerns are why the American Academy of Pediatrics for years has warned against importing formula from Europe. The Academy has published articles highlighting the dangers of buying imported baby formulas and advising against doing so. So despite all this, the Senator and others want to go forward with this bill. Here is the good news--the only good news in the short run. Here is the good news. We don't have to compromise safety standards to increase the supply. We already know that the administration's Operation Fly Formula is bringing formula into the United States at a pretty rapid clip--32 flights, 19 million 8-ounce bottle equivalents of formula. That is not the end of it. The FDA right now is using enforcement discretion to allow the importation of additional select formula through normal distribution channels, bolstering the domestic supply of safe and nutritious formula by over 220 million 8-ounce bottle equivalents. Add the two of them together, and you have almost 240 million bottles, many of which have already been imported safely. The administration is also taking other steps to increase formula production domestically by invoking the Defense Production Act to prioritize critical ingredients and manufacturing supplies for infant formula production. So steps are being taken, but we cannot--when we are invoking these powers of the executive branch or enacting legislation, we cannot compromise on safety. We have to have the highest safety standards in the world, which we do, and we have got to make sure that we adhere to those safety standards. So I object.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I have some remarks on the nominations. As the Senator from Indiana noted, the two individuals talked about are Timothy ``T.J.'' Baker and Mary Lu Jordan to serve on the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission. Mr. Baker and Ms. Jordan are highly qualified nominees who were nominated last year. Mr. Baker currently serves as the associate general counsel of the United Mine Workers of America and previously worked for the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, first as an attorney-advisor in the Office of Administrative Law Judges in Pittsburgh and then as attorney-advisor in the Office of the Commissioners in Washington, DC. Mr. Baker is also the son of a coal miner. Ms. Jordan was appointed as a Commissioner on the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission in 1994 and has served in that capacity almost continuously since then. Her most recent term as Commissioner ended in 2020, and she has since served as senior attorney-advisor at the Commission. Given their expertise and commitment to public service, both Mr. Baker and Ms. Jordan would be assets to the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission. It is past due that the Senate confirm their nominations. Confirming both would give Democrats a majority on the Commission. Mr. Baker and Ms. Jordan are among the excellent nominees who have been put forward by the Biden-Harris administration. Nominees like Mr. Baker and Ms. Jordan will help us represent our Nation's coal miners, and I hope we can advance their nominations today. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 732 and 735; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I have seven requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise to speak about yesterday's horrific tragedy in Texas, and I won't be long; I know we have votes coming up. But I wanted to start by expressing, I think, both the grief and the outrage that we see all across the country that, yet again--and not just another tragedy. In this case, the death of the 19 children and 2 adults, at least that is the latest reporting, but also indicating that the deaths took place because an armed gunman came into a school with body armor protecting him from the response from any law enforcement. So we have another example, in barely less than a week, where a gunman goes into a setting in a grocery store in Buffalo, NY, and now into a school where second graders, third graders, and fourth graders are killed because he has a high-powered weapon, and he is fully protected from any law enforcement or any other response. And we are supposed to just get used to this, I guess. That seems to be the response here in Washington. Now, this isn't a problem of Congress, more broadly, or the executive branch of our government. This is a problem--the failure to address this problem, even to pass something as simple as background check legislation--this is a problem in the Senate of one side. You have got 50 U.S. Senators who are Republicans who have refused now for years to pass anything remotely resembling commonsense gun measures. I would support a whole series of bills that we could talk about. We don't have time today. But at least the U.S. Senate should be able to pass a background check bill supported by 90 percent of the American people. And you have to ask, why is that? And it is not simply that you have so many Republicans who are beholden to the gun lobby. That is obvious. That is right in front of us. The other problem is--and I think it is related to the question of the power of the gun lobby in one party--you have got a whole party that seems to want to surrender to this problem, to throw up their hands and say: ``There is nothing the most powerful Nation in the world can do, nothing at all the most powerful nation in the world can do to stop the killing, over and over again, of Americans,'' and especially in the context of the horror--the unspeakable horror--yesterday of second, third, and fourth graders being gunned down in a manner that is so horrific that some of them can't be identified because of the power of the weapon and the number of bullets that can be discharged in a matter of seconds. So even if law enforcement gets there and isn't confronting body armor, no law enforcement is fast enough to get to a scene in seconds to prevent a horrific mass shooting. So we are supposed to accept the fact, as Americans--I guess this is what the Republican position is--that we should surrender to this problem. The most powerful Nation in the world can't stop second, third, and fourth graders from being murdered in schools. The most powerful country in the world, I guess, can't prevent the shooting we saw in Buffalo. And you can go down the list of other tragedies. This is a uniquely American problem. No other country that is similarly situated--has an economy like ours as a country even close to what we have--no other country has this problem and has any kind of change or reform or action being blocked by one side. And I know there is work that has to be done at the State legislative level and all that. But right here, we could vote this week on a background check bill, and it would be supported overwhelmingly. But think about this, and I will end with this. Think about if we had the same attitude about 9/11. What if someone said right after 9/11: ``You know what, there is really nothing we can do as Americans to stop a foreign terrorist from taking an airplane into a building or crashing an airplane into the Pentagon or the plane that went down in Pennsylvania. There is nothing we can do about that so we just have to get used to that reality of terrorists doing that to our country''? No one would say that--then or now. We created an entire new Agency, the Department of Homeland Security. And guess what, a lot of those reforms that we made to protect Americans against terrorism worked. Just like no one said years ago, when we had these viruses and the potential of pandemics, that we shouldn't do anything about it even though we have the knowledge and the skill to create a vaccine. We invested. We did what Americans do--confronted a big problem and did something about it. What if during World War II, what if everyone stood up and said: ``You know, the Axis nations are pretty powerful. Those nations are pretty powerful. They have the most well-funded, sophisticated armies in the world, and there is nothing we can do in 1941 to take on the Axis powers''? We didn't say that. It is un-American to surrender--to surrender to a problem. Now you have an entire political party in this Chamber that has not just surrendered to the lobby--that is objectionable and insulting enough-- but they surrendered to the problem; that there is nothing we can do about it. That, I would submit, is un-American. And it is about time that the Republicans in the Senate begin to be part of the solution to do something that Americans do all the time--confronting evil, like we did after 9/11; confronting terrorism or disease or whatever it is; and in this case to confront gun violence and do something about it, not sit around and pretend that there is nothing we can do. That is un- American. We don't surrender. We are Americans. We take on tough problems like our entire history has shown. But we haven't taken on this problem. What we should be saying to these families, in addition to offering our sympathy, is: Your government has failed you. Your government at the Federal level and your government at the State level, it has failed you. And in this case and in this Chamber it has failed because one side will not even entertain the idea of passing any gun measures. They have surrendered. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this morning to express concern for the people of Ukraine and the hundreds of millions who are going to bed hungry across the globe. Every day since that terrible day, February 24, we have watched in horror as Vladimir Putin and his army, his forces, killed innocent Ukrainians, over and over and over again like nothing--nothing--we have seen since World War II. Russian forces continue to besiege and shell Ukrainian cities like Mariupol, where over the last two months, civilians have lived in bunkers under perpetual fire. These are civilians in those bunkers. Only yesterday, 130 civilians managed to escape the battered Azovstal steel plant. Describing the last several months, one evacuee said: You can't imagine how scary it is when you sit in the shelter, in a wet and damp basement which is bouncing, shaking. We were praying to God that missiles fly over our shelter, because if it hit the shelter, all of us would be done. Sadly, 200 more Ukrainian civilians have been unable to evacuate, even as Russian forces began storming the steel mill just yesterday. So our prayers are with them and the remaining brave Ukrainian fighters continuing to hold on to this plant. But atrocities continue across all of Ukraine. In Donetsk yesterday, three civilians were killed on their way to collecting water-- collecting water--for their families. The United States, of course, must continue to help Ukraine fight against Mr. Putin and his forces. Mr. Putin is the incarnation of evil. It is as clear as any debate could be. The good news is, countries all over the world are unified against him. But we have a long way to go. Now, I and so many others across the House and the Senate strongly supported the appropriation that Congress made back in March--$13.6 billion in emergency appropriations to support Ukraine, and I stand by President Biden's recent $33 billion request to help Ukraine defend itself over the long term. Unfortunately, in that first number, the $13.6 billion, the good news is we had support for that in both parties. But I have to say for the record: Not enough support on the Republican side. Here in the Senate, 31 Republicans voted against the $13.6 billion. And when you add up the Senate Republicans voting against the $13.6 billion in the spending bill and add them to the House Republicans, which is, obviously, a much bigger number, it is more than 200 Members of the Republican Party in the U.S. Congress voted against every single penny of the $13.6 billion for Ukraine. So I hope--I hope--when it comes to the $33 billion that I hope we will be able to pass--but I am sure it will be a number at least comparable to that. But whatever the number is for the people of Ukraine, I hope that we will get unanimous support in the U.S. Congress. I hope we won't see more than 200 Members of Republicans in the Congress voting against the people of Ukraine. This is not a difficult choice. You are either on one side or the other. I said Mr. Putin is the incarnation of evil--he is. The good news is, we have another choice. The other choice is Mr. Zelenskyy, the people of Ukraine, and those brave fighters in Ukraine. They are the personification of all that we claim to stand for when we talk about democracy. This isn't a moment to theorize or to talk about democracy in glowing terms without taking actions. They are doing the fighting on the battlefield. The least that we can do is vote the right way. That is the power you have as a Member of Congress. House, Senate, Democrat, Republican or Independent, you have the power to vote. And I hope that we will have unanimous support for the $33 billion that the President has asked for. Now, what will that funding entail? I won't go through all of it, but this funding will include $20.4 billion in additional security and military assistance for Ukraine. It is important to put that into context, so it is basically 20 of the 33 will be for security and military assistance. That is on top of what has already been appropriated just since the battle--the war in Ukraine started when Russia invaded. With President Biden's leadership and with a lot of support in the Congress, we have been able to provide billions of dollars just on the military and security assistance, not to mention the humanitarian support, the sanctions, and the unified approach that so many countries around the world have taken. But we have a lot more to do, and in my judgment, the $33 billion won't be enough. We are going to be back at it probably in a few months providing more. But at a minimum, we have got to get this done for the people of Ukraine. Part of that appropriation will be the replenishing of donated NATO weapons and equipment. This help, in total--all of this security assistance and other humanitarian support--will be critical to Ukraine's ability to prevail--to prevail--over Russian forces through the summer and the fall. We must continue to provide all of the artillery, the anti-tank, the anti-air weapons, and air defense systems and other capabilities that Ukraine can use to block Russian authoritarianism and support the Ukrainian people. However, regardless of how much support the United States, NATO, and other allies and partners provide, we must remember that nothing we do--nothing we do--is comparable to the awesome sacrifice for freedom and democracy that Ukrainians are now making every day when they give their lives--they give their lives in this war--and have their own families shattered in the process. They are upholding--the people of Ukraine, those brave fighters on the battlefield every day, every week, every month now, those Ukrainians are upholding democracy, not just for themselves, not just for our country, but for the entire free world. There are, of course, other consequences to this war. The war has already driven over 13 million Ukrainians from their homes. These Ukrainians, who are either refugees going to another country or internally displaced within Ukraine but are outside of their homes, that number is equal to the entire population--roughly equivalent, 13 million, to the entire population of my home State of Pennsylvania. Just imagine that, 13 million people being displaced. And, unfortunately, it doesn't seem like that will be the end. So I want to commend the European Union and Ukrainian neighbors in the region for their warm welcome to such an unprecedented refugee flow from Ukraine. Now, recently, just two weeks ago, traveling through Italy, Georgia, and France, I saw everyday Italians, Georgians, Frenchmen and Frenchwomen opening their hearts and their homes to Ukrainian refugees, not to mention the people of Poland, who have done so much, and so many others. Just one example, in Italy, faith-based nonprofits like Sant'Egidio that we had time to meet with on our trip have led the way in providing support to those in need. I also commend the administration's work to support these refugees across Europe and those remaining in Ukraine, much of that work funded by part of the $13.6 billion that Congress appropriated in March.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader. I will resume my comments about food security. As I mentioned earlier, across the world now, we not only have 276 million people who now face acute food insecurity--as I said, meaning that they are in immediate danger of not being able to find their next meal--but what is ahead is an exacerbation of that problem. Another 47 million people will likely face these same dangers by the end of this year. So a food security problem, which was a substantial problem before the pandemic, made ever worse by the pandemic, has gotten much worse because of the war in Ukraine--all caused by an attack on a sovereign country by a brutal dictator, Mr. Putin. So this is one of the many reasons why this war in Ukraine--or why all of us, I should say, across the free world have a stake in what happens in Ukraine. I wanted to also highlight what the United States is doing in the midst of this terrible food insecurity crisis. We can't afford to forget and should not forget about the tens of millions who are struggling to survive as a result of this invasion. To feed all of those in need, the World Food Programme, which does such good work all across the globe--goes into conflict zones to provide food to people--that program estimates it will take more than $18 billion. The United States must not share this burden alone, but if we don't lead the way, no one will. That is true in so many instances. It is true with regard to the President's leadership against Mr. Putin by helping the people of Ukraine; it is also true in terms of American leadership on food security. President Biden's request for $33 billion for all aspects of the challenge in Ukraine doesn't include enough, in my judgment. It includes $1.6 billion for food security and humanitarian assistance. Now, that sounds like a lot of money, but it is not enough to meet the moment. And despite my consistent urging, Congress has appropriated flat funding for the U.S. food security program, Feed the Future, over the last 10 years. Adjusting for inflation, the program has been cut by almost a third of its total programming, from almost $1.5 billion in today's dollars to just over $1 billion. So, today, we face the same global food crisis which the Feed the Future Program was originally created to address after the 2008 recession. So after a recession, we had a global food security challenge, and now after a pandemic, and exacerbated by the war in Ukraine, we have potentially an even greater challenge. So we must again rise to the challenge. When I say ``we,'' I mean the U.S. Government, the Congress, the branch of our government that appropriates money, has to rise to the challenge by providing the resources that are necessary to feed those who face famine--not just missing a meal here and there, famine itself. We have got to support these smallholder farmers, who are the backbone of the world's food supply, and sustainably strengthen food systems to protect against the next war, the next pandemic, the next drought, or the next flood. So that is why I am leading a letter to appropriators urging robust funding of all--all--global food security accounts in the fiscal year 2023 budget, specifically calling for an almost $200 million increase just for the Feed the Future Program, not to mention those other global food security programs and accounts. This funding will only put a dent in the growing food security crisis, but it will inspire our allies and our partners to follow us. America leads the world in so many ways, and, fortunately, most of the time on food security we have led the world as well. We need to do that again. We need to lay the groundwork for a more secure food future and save tens and tens of thousands of lives-- potentially a lot more than that--in the immediate future.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. The ACTING PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, last week, I travelled overseas as part of a congressional delegation conducting meetings on Russian aggression, security, and food security, among other things. Our delegation was scheduled to return on Monday, April 25, but due to mechanical problems with our aircraft, we were delayed for a day. As a result of that delay, I missed two votes. I take seriously my duties in service to the people of Pennsylvania, including voting on policies and nominations. Accordingly, I wish for the record to show that, had I not been absent due to mechanical difficulties with the plane, I would have voted yea on the following votes: yea on vote No. 135, on the motion to invoke cloture: Lael Brainerd to be Vice-Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; yea on vote No. 136, on confirmation: Lael Brainerd, to be Vice-Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I just want to make some comments regarding what the junior Senator from Missouri was just talking about on the floor, and I know that my colleague from Hawaii was providing commentary as well. It is hard to comprehend how any Member of Congress, House or Senate, could come to the floor and make the criticism of the Biden administration regarding its Ukraine policy, especially with regard to the military assistance provided by this administration, and that same Senator, along with a long list of Republican Senators, voted against all the money for Ukraine just a couple weeks ago, $13.6 billion. But, unfortunately, it is entirely consistent with what those same 31 Senators have been doing for the last couple of weeks. They voted against all the money in March, and then they criticize President Biden. In fact, the day of President Zelenskyy's speech to the Congress--that inspiring speech--that so many of us were moved by, people in both parties, both Houses, all across the country, in fact, across the world were moved by what he said and, frankly, challenged by what he said. We have to do more, even in my judgment, than the $13.6 billion. But as the junior Senator from Missouri should know--I hope he knows this-- since the beginning of this administration, just on the military assistance, we have provided $2.6 billion. So more than $2.5 billion dollars just in military assistance, but the bulk of that is in that spending bill that we passed a couple of weeks ago that has the $13.6 billion. Here is what the Washington Post says, and I will read the headline and the date, and then ask consent to enter it into the Record. Here is the headline: More than two dozen Senate Republicans demand Biden do more for Ukraine after voting against $13.6 billion for Ukraine. Mr. President, dated March 17, 2022, a story by Mariana Alfaro and Eugene Scott, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY. Here is the subheadline: Thirty-one Senate Republicans voted last week against the $1.5 trillion spending bill to fund the government, increase U.S. defense spending and provide humanitarian and military assistance to Ukraine. In recent days, many of them have clamored for more weapons and aid. And it goes on from there, and I am not going to read all of it, obviously, but it chronicles the hypocrisy that we just heard here today and that we have heard for days now and weeks now, criticizing the President when they voted against all the money--so all the money from the $13.6 billion that will go to pay for the Javelin missiles that are taking out Russian tanks every day and have for weeks--every penny of that out of the $13.6. You could probably cut it in half in terms of what the military assistance will be. So let's say, for sake of argument, probably half of that, $6 or $7 billion, but whatever the exact number is, that money is going to help pay for a lot more Javelin missiles that have been so effective. The Stinger systems that they have used, the antiaircraft systems, they are all going to be paid for. The ammunition and the body armor and all of the other assistance that we are providing is going to be made possible because most of the Senate--50 Democrats and just 19 Republicans, but we are grateful for their support--voted for the money. So if you have a criticism about the administration's policy, you are certainly entitled to criticize the administration, but I think you lose your right to criticize the administration on military assistance and what we are doing or not doing on military assistance when you just voted against all the money--all the money. And yet they do it over and over again, as if no one is watching. Well, I think the American people get it, and I think they know the difference between someone who can justifiably criticize any administration on foreign policy or defense policy or anything else. But I think you should admit on the record that you didn't vote for the money. Don't throw sand in the eyes of the people. Admit on the record that you didn't vote for the money, and then lodge your criticism. But, of course, he didn't do that and so many who voted the wrong way. Now, the Washington Post also notes in this article that, obviously, it was a spending bill that will allow us to fund the government. We could talk about that, whether you support funding the government. But here is a point that was made in the article that I think a lot of people may have missed: It is that this funding bill also paid for a pay increase for our troops. U.S. servicemembers got a pay increase in this bill, and yet you would never know that by listening to some of the folks who voted the wrong way on the bill. You would think that that wasn't part of this legislation. So I think a lot of Americans probably expect that when you are making an argument against an administration, you have the right to do that, but I think it would be a lot more truthful if you were clear about where you voted on the biggest Ukraine spending measure in recent history, likely not just the biggest ever for Ukraine but the biggest ever for a lot of countries that we help. So I hope that people across this Chamber and across the country will make note of that contradiction, because when you voted against those dollars for Ukraine, you were voting against not only the people of Ukraine and their ability to fight this war and obviously the soldiers in the field, but you were voting against that humanitarian support, as well, that will provide food and medical care and so much else. Now, I am in no way satisfied that we have done enough. We have got to do a lot more. We have got to provide, in my judgment, a river, an ever-rushing stream of weapons--as many weapons as it takes to defeat Vladimir Putin. So we are going to have more debates, and Senators will have more opportunities to vote the right way when it comes to supporting the people of Ukraine. But I think it would be better for the debate if folks would mention how they voted, that they voted against the Ukraine money, that they voted against the pay raise for the troops, and they voted against a lot of other provisions. But to come on to the Senate floor and to criticize the President on military assistance, that is the height of hypocrisy. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. When confirmed later this week, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson will be the first Black woman on the U.S. Supreme Court in its 233-year history. Yesterday morning, I had the privilege of meeting with her, and we discussed her judicial methodology as well as her story and her path in the law. Rising up to overcome so many barriers, Judge Jackson's story and her family's story is truly an American story. It is a story of hard work and sacrifice. It is a story of commitment to excellence. Judge Jackson's academic credentials are impressive: graduating from Harvard College and Harvard Law School with honors from both college and law school. Her unparalleled professional credentials and the breadth of her legal experience equal or exceed that of any nominee in recent history. She has worked in private practice. She has worked as an assistant public defender--Federal public defender--and as a law clerk at every level of the Federal judicial branch, including a law clerk to Justice Breyer, who is going to be retiring from the Court. Perhaps most important, she has worked as a Federal judge for nearly 10 years, presiding over trials and later hearing appeals. During our meeting yesterday, Judge Jackson spoke about her career transition from attorney to Federal judge and specifically highlighted how her career as a trial attorney helped her grow into becoming a Federal judge. Often lost in our discussions regarding Federal judges are the people, the people who are impacted directly by our legal system in our judges' decisions. At its core, our court system, more so than any other institution, is dedicated to the idea that everyone--everyone, not just the wealthy or powerful--should have a fair shot at justice and that no one--no one--is above the law. The Beatitudes in the New Testament speak to this idea of justice. We have all heard it over and over again: Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for justice, for they shall be satisfied. The power--the power--of our judicial system and our judiciary stems from the integrity and the independence of our judges. It stems from their unrelenting commitment to the rule of law and to equal justice for all Americans. Throughout her career but particularly as a public defender--a Federal public defender--Judge Jackson has fought for a more equitable and a more just America, representing individuals accused of committing crimes and those who cannot afford a lawyer. All of those cases are difficult cases for any lawyer. The lawyer must be committed to upholding a core American value that our legal system must protect all Americans, including defendants, to ensure ``Equal Justice Under Law,'' as is inscribed on the front of the Supreme Court itself. Judge Jackson has lived this commitment to justice, to equal justice. She understands the awesome power that will be bestowed upon her as a Supreme Court Justice. She has seen firsthand the impact that a judge's decision can have on plaintiffs and defendants alike. It is why Judge Jackson has discussed how, when she was a district judge, she would often take extra care to communicate with defendants in her courtroom to ensure that they understood the complexities of the legal proceedings happening before them. For when a defendant is before the bar of justice, their liberty is at stake, and Judge Jackson wanted to make sure that they understood what was happening before them and what could happen to them. Her commitment to equal justice is also evident by her impartial rulings and the widespread support she has received from across the political spectrum. As a district court judge and as a circuit court judge, Judge Jackson has ruled for and against the government, in favor of prosecutors and for criminal defendants, for labor and for business, for civil plaintiffs and defendants. Her nomination received the support from several Republican Senators, Republican-appointed judges, and former Republican-appointed officials. She received broad support from law enforcement organizations, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and other top law enforcement officials, including former Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey, as well as crime survivors, and other advocates. Her nomination has received further support from civil rights organizations as well as business organizations. Of course, Judge Jackson's nomination is about more than simply the great support that she has received and her impeccable credentials. Both are important, but that is not it. Yesterday morning, after my meeting with Judge Jackson, she was kind enough to meet with several members of my staff who have graduated from law school or who are getting ready to apply to law school, some of whom have been accepted. She offered some salient advice about law school. I won't disclose what it was here, but it was good advice. And she encouraged them to keep going, to persevere. Now, Judge Jackson is already today, and has been for weeks and months now, an inspiration to tens of millions of Americans. Her graciousness, her humility, and her legal acumen are simply unmatched. Her confirmation to the Supreme Court will also inspire many future generations, those yet to come and not simply future lawyers and advocates. And certainly and particularly, her nomination and her confirmation will be particularly inspiring to young Black women and girls to persevere, as she said to our staff yesterday. The day of her confirmation will be a good day for America. She lifts our spirits at a very difficult time for our Nation. And while we have a long way to go, Judge Jackson's nomination is an important step to bringing us closer to having our institutions better reflect the great diversity of our Nation as we strive to be a more perfect Union. I will go back to the Beatitudes again. ``Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for justice, for they shall be satisfied.'' Judge Jackson, I have no doubt, will continue her work to strive for justice, to act with justice, as one of the great hymns tells us. She will do all of this as she discharges her duty as Justice Jackson. I look forward to voting for her to serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, last week Tuesday, I tested positive for COVID-19 during weekly surveillance testing. As per the CDC's guidance, I left the Capitol and began a period of isolation. As a result of that isolation, I missed a number of votes. I take seriously my duties in service to the people of Pennsylvania, including voting on policies and nominations. Accordingly, I wish for the record to show that, had I not been absent due to a COVID infection, I would have voted yea on the following votes: yea on vote No. 98, on the confirmation on the nomination of Ruth Bermudez Montenegro, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California; yea on vote No. 99, on the confirmation on the nomination of Victoria Marie Calvert, of Georgia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia; yea on vote No. 100, on the motion to proceed to H.R. 4521; yea on vote No. 101, on the confirmation on the nomination of Julie Rebecca Rubin, of Maryland, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Maryland; yea on vote No. 102, on the confirmation on the nomination of Hector Gonzalez, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York; yea on vote No. 103, on the confirmation on the nomination of John H. Chun, of Washington, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington; yea on vote No. 104, on the confirmation on the nomination of Cristina D. Silva, of Nevada, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Nevada; yea on vote No. 105, on the confirmation on the nomination of Anne Rachel Traum, of Nevada, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Nevada; yea on vote No. 106, on the confirmation on the nomination of Alison J. Nathan, of New York, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit; and yea on vote No. 107, on the confirmation on the nomination of Andrew M. Luger, of Minnesota, to be U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota. I am grateful to have only experienced mild symptoms of the virus as a result of being fully vaccinated and boosted. I encourage anyone who has yet to be vaccinated to do so and to get boosted if they are eligible.