Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 10, 2013, at 10 a.m.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 10, 2013, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 10, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Conflicts between State and Federal Marijuana Laws.''

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 10, 2013.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 10, 2013, at 10:15 a.m. in room SD-650 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Bankruptcy and the Courts, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 10, 2013, at 10:30 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Federal Judgeship Act of 2013.''

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 10, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. CASEY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, this week we have a very difficult set of questions to answer relating to Syria and the ongoing crisis there. But in particular we have a question to answer as it relates to what the United States should do. I rise this morning to express strong support for this authorization to degrade Bashar al-Asad's chemical weapons capability and deter the future use of these horrific weapons. I made this determination based upon the evidence and the national security interests of the United States, both our national security interests today as well as in the future. The resolution that is before the Senate right now does not allow for the deployment of U.S. combat troops on the ground in Syria. I will not support--nor do I think there will be much support in this Chamber--any measure that would involve U.S. boots on the ground in Syria and this resolution specifically speaks to this concern. I am quoting, in part, the resolution: The authority granted in section 2(a) does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Syria for the purpose of combat operations. It is important we make that point. As we have all seen, especially in the last few days, the situation in Syria is in flux, especially in the last 24 hours. The Russian Government put forth a proposal yesterday which would have international monitors take control of Syria's chemical weapons in order to avert a U.S. military strike. I am open to this diplomatic discussion--however not without caution and not without skepticism. Diplomatic solutions are always a preferred path and military strikes should always be the last resort. I think prior to this proposal we were at this point of a last resort. But the only reason this proposal is on the table is because of the credible threat of force that is being debated in Washington--but even more significantly being debated across the country. The authorization itself should still go forward because it will keep the pressure on the Syrian regime for a diplomatic solution. Let's take a couple of minutes on our own national security interests. In March of 2011, as reported by the U.S. State Department, multiple news sources, including CNN, reported--and I will submit for the Record a report from CNN--that the Syrian Government authorities had arrested 15 schoolchildren in the city of Daraa for spray-painting antigovernment slogans. These young people were reportedly tortured while in custody and authorities resorted to force when their parents and others in the community called for their release. Within 1 week the police had killed 55 demonstrators in connection with the early efforts to provide opposition to the Asad regime. The regime committed countless atrocities during the next 2 years of this conflict, culminating in the unspeakable use--the indiscriminate use of chemical weapons on August 21. I submit for the Record a report from CNN, dated March 1, 2012, and ask it be printed in the Record. This report is March of 2012, but it looks back in a retrospective fashion on what happened in those early days of the opposition coming together in 2011. I will read a pertinent part, part of what CNN said about what happened when these schoolchildren were demonstrating against the regime. They talked in this report about the young people, as I mentioned, not just protesting but spray-painting their beliefs against the regime. At the time, not a lot of people around the world were focused on what was happening in Syria. Let me quote in pertinent part what at one point one of the citizens on the street was saying, that the people in Daraa: . . . didn't want to go against the regime. People thought that this [leader, Mr. Asad] was better than his dad. Nobody wanted to go face-to-face with him. But then of course it was young people, in this case even schoolchildren, who led the way to take him on. I submit this for the record because this opposition started on the streets of Syria, in this case in Daraa, starting with young people, but it of course continued from there. We know that the regime itself has the largest chemical stockpile in the region, one of the largest in the world. We know Mr. Asad used these weapons against his own people, not only on August 21 but on multiple occasions prior to that in a much more limited way. We also know he has the capacity, the will, and unfortunately the track record to use these weapons against innocent civilians. We also should remember we have troops and other military and diplomatic personnel in the region, in the Middle East. Even Syria's acquisition--even Syria's very acquisition of chemical weapons threatens our national security. In 2003, the Congress of the United States--some people have forgotten about this--the Congress of the United States in 2003 passed the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of that year. This act explicitly states that Congress found--the U.S. Congress made a finding that ``Syria's acquisition''--and I am underlining that word ``acquisition''--``of weapons of mass destruction threatens the security of the Middle East and the national security interests of the United States.'' This Congress 10 years ago made a determination that the acquisition of chemical weapons was a threat to our national security. We are in a different world now. Syria not only acquired them but has now used them multiple times on its own people, the most recent being the horrific scenes that we all saw in some of the videos that are now part of the public record. So there is clear and convincing evidence of the direct involvement of the Asad regime, the forces of the Asad regime and senior officials, in the planning, execution, aftermath, and attempts to cover up the August 21 attack. This is graphically evident in the 13 authenticated videos released by the Senate Intelligence Committee compiled by the Open Source Center showing the results of chemical weapons use in the Damascus suburbs on August 21. These videos were shown to the Intelligence Committee on Thursday and played on CNN on Saturday. So many Americans have seen them. If anyone would like more information about those, go to my Web site and I am certain many others as well. It is clear that the regime violated international law as it relates to chemical weapons. We know the regime committed a barrage of terror across the country with the sole aim of remaining in power. We have to ask ourselves, when a dictator or terrorist organization uses chemical weapons in violation of international law, should that regime or terrorist organization pay a price? I argue that they must pay a price. We simply can't condemn this crime against humanity; it is in the national security interest of the United States for the administration to have the authorization to act. The regime in Iran, the terrorist organization Hezbollah, and the regime in North Korea are watching very closely, so it is imperative that we take steps to address this threat. Let me talk about the regime in Iran and Hezbollah. What happens in Syria is of great consequence to our security interest as it relates to that regime in Hezbollah. When I say ``that regime,'' I am speaking about the Iran regime. Their support for Hezbollah, through Syria, has resulted in constant plotting against the United States and its allies. The Asad regime in Syria is the conduit of this relationship between Hezbollah and the Iranian regime itself. I support this authorization of targeted and strategic military action in order to hold the Syrian regime accountable and because it will diminish the ability of Iran and Hezbollah to conduct acts of terror. It will also protect American lives if we hold them accountable, as well as, of course, the Syrian people. Indeed, other than Al Qaeda, Hezbollah has killed more Americans than any other terrorist organization in the world, including 241 marines in 1983. Hezbollah has consistently partnered with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to bolster Asad's campaign of repression and violence in Syria, which has further destabilized the region. The regime in Iran has provided funds, weapons, logistical support, tactical advice, and fighters to the Syrian Government forces. Just this year Iran's support to Asad has increased, with reported daily resupply flights to Syria. The Syrian regime possesses a stockpile of chemical weapons that we cannot allow to fall into the hands of terrorists. Iran and Hezbollah-- I think some people in Washington missed this--are not on the sidelines; they are already on the battlefield. I would argue that Iran and Hezbollah are on two battlefields. Certainly, they are on the battlefield in Syria but also the daily battlefield of terrorist acts plotting against the United States and other countries as well. Failure to bring action and failure to hold Syria accountable after such a horrific crime will only serve to embolden the Iranian regime, to embolden the terrorist organization Hezbollah and others, to expand terror across the world. Iran's status as the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism is well established, and its proxies have perpetuated attacks against the United States, Israel, and our allies. Emboldened by Iran's support, Hezbollah has conducted terrorist attacks since its inception in the early 1980s--including Western targets. Hezbollah has become more aggressive in the last few years and has executed attacks not only in the Middle East but on two other continents--South Asia and Europe. Just 2 years ago a plot was uncovered to blow up a restaurant in Georgetown--right here in Washington, DC--to kill the Saudi Ambassador to the United States, along with U.S. officials and average citizens who are American. When the Iranian-backed attacker was questioned, he referred to the potential killing of Americans as ``no big deal.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the report by the Department of Justice entitled ``Two Men Charged in Alleged Plot to Assassinate Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States.'' The list goes on. We know that in June of 1996 there was the bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia where 19 U.S. Air Force personnel were killed. That is another example of an Iran-backed terrorist activity. It goes back, as I mentioned, to 1983 when 241 marines were killed by a truck bombing in Beirut. There are also new reports on evidence that strongly suggests that an Iran-backed plot was underway to kill a U.S. Ambassador in 2011. Hezbollah has consistently partnered with Iran to do just that. The national security interest of the United States is even more significant than that. It is not simply the green light it would send to Iran and Hezbollah as it relates to terrorism. If we don't take the right action here, it would send a message and green light to Iran as it relates to their nuclear program. We know the Iranian regime is intent on developing nuclear weapons capability. I support a variety of measures to prevent Iran from acquiring that capability. Condemnation only of Syria would embolden Iran and undermine our efforts to prevent the Iranian regime from developing and possessing a nuclear weapon. Every Member of Congress will have to weigh the consequence of giving the green light to the use of chemical weapons and contemplate what it will mean for enemies, such as the Iranian regime and Hezbollah, who plot against the United States every day. I am like a lot of Members of Congress in that after receiving several intelligence briefings, I have more confidence than ever before that we have a significant national security imperative to authorize the President to act as it relates to Syria. I have no doubt that Mr. Asad used the chemical weapons against his people and it is evident that he crossed more than one redline. So I support this limited and proportional scope of authorization for the use of force. By the way, this authorization would probably be the most limited authorization in recent American history. I believe Congress must stand united on this issue, and we have to make sure we not only hold the regime accountable but make sure we are doing everything possible to send the right message. I have two more points before I conclude. One of the best rationales for the reason we are taking the steps I hope we will take was set forth in an op-ed printed in the New York Times last weekend by Nicholas Kristof, and it is dated September 7, 2013. The op-ed is entitled ``Pulling the Curtain Back on Syria,'' and I ask unanimous consent to have this op-ed printed in the Record. I think one of the most important lines in here--and, of course, I will not read the entire op-ed--is what Mr. Kristof wrote: In other words, while there are many injustices around the world, from Darfur to eastern Congo, take it from one who has covered most of them: Syria is today the world capital of human suffering. There are few journalists--there are few Americans--who have more credibility on the issue of what is happening to children and vulnerable populations around the world than Nicholas Kristof. For him to say the world capital of human suffering is in Syria is a powerful and compelling statement. That brings me back to where I started. I started walking through the early days of this opposition to a repressive regime against Mr. Asad, and the people who led the way and made a case against his regime in large measure were the children or young people. One of the harrowing and very disturbing elements of this entire crisis--this war that has raged on for more than 2 years now--is the impact it has had on children. I received a report today that came from Save the Children. They have enormous credibility not only on children's issues worldwide, but there are Save the Children personnel on the ground in Syria. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the document entitled ``Briefing note: The children crisis in Syria'' be printed in the Record as well. That documents in great detail the human suffering of children and the impact this has had on millions of Syrian children. But, of course, maybe the most graphic and disturbing example of that was the footage that virtually every American has had an opportunity to view which shows the hundreds and hundreds of children who were killed instantly in this horrific chemical weapons attack. By one estimate, more than 400--maybe as many as 426--children were killed. When we confront this issue, we cannot simply say: Oh, this is just another horrific situation around the world. When we consider what this regime did to schoolchildren--arrested them and by many accounts tortured them from the beginning of this opposition all the way through to the attack on August 21--and what will continue to happen to children in Syria and in places around the world, we are summoned by our conscience to act in some fashion and hold this regime accountable. I want to be open to this possibility that maybe there is a breakthrough, that we can remove this terrible threat from Syria and wipe out the chemical weapons threat by giving total and complete control of chemical weapons to an international force, but the burden of proof is on Syria and the Russian Federation. They have to deliver very specifically in a very short timeframe if they expect us to agree to this. We should be hopeful and consider this opportunity, but at the same time we cannot divorce ourselves from the reality of what happened, the consequence of not acting, and also the long-term and short-term national security interests of the United States, which I think are overwhelming and compelling in this instance. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess. From CNN.com, Mar. 1, 2012] Daraa: The Spark That Lit the Syrian Flame (By Joe Sterling) Syria is burning--scorched for nearly a year by tenacious political resistance, a merciless security crackdown and cries for democracy. The spark that lit the flame began about a year ago in the southern city of Daraa after the arrests of at least 15 children for painting anti-government graffiti on the walls of a school. The community's blunt outrage over the children's arrests and mistreatment, the government's humiliating and violent reactions to their worries, and the people's refusal to be cowed by security forces emboldened and helped spread the Syrian opposition. Fate of neighborhood uncertain Daraa soon became a rallying cry across the country for what began as a rural and provincial-driven uprising. Syrians compare the dramatic dynamics in the rural city to the moment Tunisian street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi torched himself in December 2010. Bouazizi's act and death spawned demonstrations that led to the grassroots ouster of Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and fueled other protests across the Arab world. Mohamed Masalmeh--a Halifax, Nova Scotia-based Syrian activist whose family hails from Daraa--said Daraa residents broke the people's ``wall of fear'' by defying what he and others call a police state and taking to the street. ``What people did in Daraa was unheard of,'' he said. Omar Almuqdad, a journalist from Daraa now living in Turkey, said, ``They started protesting day after day.'' ``It was the flame of the revolution.'' A slow burn into a firestorm Discontent in Syria has slow-burned for decades. A clampdown on a Muslim Brotherhood uprising by the current president's predecessor and father--President Hafez Assad-- killed thousands in Hama in 1982. When Bashar al-Assad took the presidency after his father died in 2000, he gave lip service to reforms. But activists who emerged from the so-called Damascus Spring after the death of Hafez and those in 2005 who urged reforming what they said was an ``authoritarian, totalitarian and cliquish regime'' found themselves in trouble with the authorities. There was sectarian and ethnic unrest in the last decade, too, with a Druze uprising flaring in 2000 and a Kurdish rebellion erupting in 2004. When the Arab Spring unfolded last year, Syrians imbibed the contagious revolutionary fervor spreading across the Middle East. But the anger smoldered under the surface because of the Goliath-sized, all-seeing and all-knowing security and spying apparatus. Protests popped up in Syria as video images of public defiance in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia swept the world--small outpourings seen by observers as tests to build a Syrian nerve to take to the streets. And then--Daraa. Remote Daraa sits just a few miles from the Jordanian border. It has had its economic struggles, such as drought and drops in subsidies and salaries. Nevertheless, it had been a reliable bastion of support for the regime and its Baath party. Tribal and predominantly Sunni, Daraa is like many small towns. People know one another and the relationships are close in the city and in the nearby villages and towns. When the schoolchildren were arrested in late February 2011, they were accused of scrawling graffiti on a school that said ``the people want to topple the regime.'' Masalmeh, the activist, said security went to a school, interrogated students and rounded up suspects. It wasn't as if this vandalism was rare. Such graffiti was becoming so common in the region that ID was needed to buy spray cans. But these arrests struck a chord. Residents found out their boys were being beaten and tortured in prison. The families of the boys approached authorities and asked for their sons' release. Activists and observers say authorities shunned and insulted the people. One official reportedly said: ``Forget your children. If you really want your children, you should make more children. If you don't know how to make more children, we'll show you how to do it.'' ``At some point, the insult is so far below the belt. People do respond to it. They just don't bow down anymore,'' Amnesty International's Neil Sammonds said. Protests grow On March 16, a female-led sit-in in Damascus demanded the release of prisoners unfairly jailed. Some of the participants were Daraans, with strong ties back to their home province, and part of the educated, urbanite youth living in Damascus. ``Police dragged protesters by the hair and beat them,'' said Mohja Kahf, a novelist, professor and activist in Arkansas with contacts across Syria. ``This built on the gathering outrage over the Daraa children who are prisoners.'' A day later, a sit-in in Daraa, with some detained. The next day, on March 18, a protest against the arrests of the children, according to The Human Rights Watch. ``Security forces opened fire, killing at least four protesters and within days, the protests grew into rallies that gathered thousands of people,'' the group said. Activists regard these as the first deaths in the Syrian uprising. People began rallying in other cities across Syria that day--Jassem, Da'el, Sanamein and Inkhil. Kahf said the government responded with live fire only in Daraa. But the more people demonstrated in Daraa, the tougher security forces cracked down. And as the crackdown worsened, the more resolute the protesters became. The people in Daraa ``didn't want to go against the regime,'' Masalmeh said. ``People thought this guy--Bashar-- was better than his dad. Nobody wanted to go face-to-face with him. ``It's not like they fought with arms at that moment,'' he said. ``They were just defiant. `All that we want is our children.' '' The youths were eventually freed, but YouTube videos and demonstrations were already spreading. Al-Assad addressed the Daraa unrest in a March 30 speech before lawmakers, blaming the unrest on sedition. ``They started in the governorate (province) of Daraa,'' al-Assad said, adding ``the conspirators took their plan to other governorates.'' ``That speech had a catastrophic impact,'' the International Crisis Group's Peter Harling said. ``People who wanted to support the regime at the time were shocked by the speech.'' The dismissiveness of al-Assad and the lawmakers who applauded his words awakened many Syrian people, says the Human Rights Watch's Nadim Houry. Two days later, weekly anti-government protests began across Syria. Calls for reforms soon morphed into calls for the removal of the al-Assad regime. ``Courage is contagious,'' Houry said. The government launched a full-scale siege on Daraa April 25, with other towns such as Homs to follow. Mass arrests unfolded and tales of torture spread across the country. The protest movement grew and solidified into an opposition. Paul Salem, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center, points out ``it's conceivable that if the events didn't happen in Daraa,'' the uprising ``might not have occurred.'' But the deep-seated political and economic reasons underlining Syrian discontent was an omen. Protest in Syria was ``going to happen'' at some point, Salem said. So, out of Daraa, a spark. And a year later, the uprisings blaze on. ``The impact of small events on history can be huge,'' Salem said.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, September 10, 2013; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business until 11 a.m., with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; further, that at 11 a.m. the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. J. Res. 21, and the time until noon be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; finally, that the Senate recess from 12 p.m. until 2:15 to allow for the weekly caucus meetings.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 220 which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, today I wish to honor and remember the full life of Congressman William H. Gray, III, and his exceptional service to his community, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and our country. Bill was born in Baton Rouge, LA, the second child of Dr. William H. Gray, Jr., and Hazel Gray. Though he spent the first 8 years of his life in Florida, Bill moved to Philadelphia in 1949 and remained a distinguished resident of our Commonwealth until his recent passing. Bill was a pastor and shepherd for his congregation, a respected member of the U.S. House of Representatives, and a powerful advocate for higher education. Today we honor his life, his good works, and his legacy. As a pastor, Bill followed in the footsteps of his father and grandfather and led Philadelphia's Bright Hope Baptist Church for more than 33 years. Knowing that the ministry was not just something you did on Sunday morning, Bill always believed strongly in the principle of a ``whole ministry,'' that the church must tend to all the needs of its entire congregation. Under Bill's leadership, that congregation quickly grew to over 4,000 parishioners, but Bill remained committed to his ``whole ministry'' and made sure to continue his important advocacy work on issues ranging from housing, to economic justice, to excellent education for all. Bill often said that his position as pastor of Bright Hope was the most important job he had ever had, one that cultivated the skills and priorities that shaped his life's work. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Bill proudly represented the Second District of Pennsylvania from 1979 to 1991 and built a reputation as a thoughtful and effective leader. Bill quickly rose through the ranks of leadership during his 12 years in Congress and assumed the chairmanship of the Budget Committee, after only 6 years in office. Three years later, in 1988, he was elected to chair his party's House caucus, and then in 1989 he became the House majority whip, the third-ranking leadership position in the House. As a lifelong advocate for higher education, Bill chose to leave Congress at the pinnacle of his career to accept the position of president and CEO of the United Negro College Fund. He said at the time that ``Woodrow Wilson used to say, `My constituency is the next generation,' and you know, that's why I left Congress, because my constituency, really, is the next generation.'' Bill's 12-year tenure at UNCF brought unexpected growth in support for historically Black colleges, and he constantly sought innovative ways to both attract new investment and increase existing funding. By the time he left UNCF 12 years later, Bill and his team had raised more than $1.54 billion. Bill never rested and was never satisfied with one job at a time. While leading the UNCF, he was asked by President Clinton in 1994 to lead the efforts to restore democracy in Haiti. His work there earned him the Medal of Honor from the President of Haiti. In 2004, Bill started Gary Global Strategies, Inc., and served as a director on multiple corporate boards, including at Dell, JPMorgan Chase, and Pfizer. He also served as vice chairman for the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care and on the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council. Bill often said that he had ``always been taught by my folk, parents, grandparents, that service is sort of the rent you pay for the space you occupy. And so, what I've tried to do is direct my life towards service based on faith and commitment, and social justice.'' As Bill's family and friends mourn his passing, I pray that they will be comforted by the knowledge that this great Nation will never forget the commitment Bill demonstrated to each of us, to his ``whole ministry.'' May he rest in peace.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the University of Scranton on the occasion of the 125th anniversary of its founding. For more than a century, this esteemed institution of higher education has made invaluable contributions to the City of Scranton, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and, most importantly, the lives of its many alumni. Founded in 1888 as Saint Thomas College by Most Reverend William G. O'Hara, the first Bishop of Scranton, the college was staffed by diocesan priests and seminarians until 1896, and then briefly by the Xaverian Brothers. From 1897 until the arrival of the school's first Jesuit administration in 1942, the college was administered for the Diocese by the Christian Brothers. Renamed the University of Scranton in 1938, it is today ``a community dedicated to the freedom of inquiry and personal development fundamental to the growth in wisdom and integrity of all who share its life.'' I am proud that my hometown is host to an academic institution of the caliber of the University of Scranton. An anchor of the city's Hill Section, the university has grown well beyond its roots as a commuter school into a nationally recognized and respected university with a total enrollment of over 6,000 students in undergraduate, graduate and nontraditional programs. As a Senator representing the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and a member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, ensuring that our Nation's children and young adults have access to high quality educational opportunities is one of my highest priorities. I firmly believe that anyone with the drive, fortitude and desire to pursue the opportunities afforded by higher education should be able to realize that dream. Throughout its history, the University of Scranton has enabled countless students to further their education and become productive members of society. It is with great pride, as both a Senator from Pennsylvania and as a native of Scranton, that I honor the University of Scranton today. The contributions that this institution has made to both our Commonwealth and to our Nation are commendable, and I wish them all the best.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise today to talk about legislation we are currently considering, and it is a welcome development that we are actually working on appropriations bills on the Senate floor. I want to commend the work of Chairwoman Mikulski of the Appropriations Committee, her ranking member Senator Shelby, as well as both Chairman Murray and Ranking Member Collins on the so-called THUD bill. Everything in Washington has an acronym. So it is with this, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. As many people know, when you consider those appropriations and you consider the subject matter, it is pretty broad and diverse. I will just give maybe a five-part summation here of what we are talking about. It means investing, of course, in transportation infrastructure; providing housing and services to very vulnerable Americans; supporting our communities and addressing the foreclosure crisis, which is still with us in so many ways, as the Presiding Officer knows so well and has worked so hard on over many years; ensuring the safety of our transportation system; and then, No. 5, promoting sustainability in our communities. I want to talk first about Amtrak. Amtrak is part of our transportation infrastructure that not only is critically important for a State such as Pennsylvania but really the entire eastern seaboard and really across the whole country. It is one of the reasons we can move not just people but goods and services with the transactions that occur when people are able to get from one place to another. The Senate bill we are considering includes almost $1.5 billion for Amtrak, preserving the Federal commitments to provide safe, reliable, and energy-efficient passenger rail transportation for more than 31 million travelers--and that is an annual number--plus an additional 235 million commuter trips that depend upon Amtrak and its infrastructure along the Northeast corridor. Unfortunately, the House bill guts funding for Amtrak, cutting the appropriation by a third--$465 million below the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. This is the lowest level of funding in over a decade. It makes no sense in a lot of ways to try to find savings in a bill like this at such an extreme level. It makes no sense at all in terms of our economy. Due to contract and debt service payment commitments, this would mean Amtrak only has $100 million for capital investments. The Northeast corridor alone needs $782 million per year to address longstanding state of good repair projects, so not even one-seventh of the dollars we need for state of good repair projects. This is not just a nice thing to do every year. You have to fix the infrastructure if you are running a transportation system and especially if you are running Amtrak. So that is not only a safety issue, but it is a jobs issue. You could put at risk some 10,000 jobs and possibly eliminate some existing Amtrak routes. In 2012 over 6.1 million Amtrak passengers traveled at Pennsylvania stations, and this number is expected to increase in 2013. Ridership has continued to grow over the past several years. It reached an alltime high last year and is on track to break that record in 2013. I was just talking to folks at Amtrak today, and they talked about the tremendous growth in ridership. That is good for a lot of reasons. It is not just nice for Amtrak. Most importantly, it is good for our environment, with fewer people driving cars that have an impact on air emissions. It is also probably a great stress-reliever for people. Driving and working is a challenge, getting from one place to another. Riding on a train can allow you to do work and maybe allow you to be more rested, and it probably cuts down on traffic fatalities, although I do not have a study that backs that up. But there is no question that we want to make sure we make these investments in Amtrak, and I hope we can ultimately get a bipartisan agreement and have some of the features of bipartisanship we have seen here in the Senate. We also know that Amtrak, just from a Pennsylvania perspective, is a job creator. It employs over 2,600 Pennsylvanians, and these jobs could be in jeopardy if these cuts are maintained. The other aspect--and I will end with this on Amtrak--are the suppliers who are affected. And, of course, that is a big jobs issue as well. Let me move to the second part of my remarks today about this very important appropriations bill, and that has another acronym: CDBG, community development block grants. A lot of people might know this acronym better than THUD--the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bill. The Community Development Block Grant Program is so important for a variety of reasons. One of the most important reasons we should focus on it is that it is one of the few remaining Federal programs where the Federal Government says to local governments: Here are some resources. These are taxpayer resources, so you have to safeguard them and spend them wisely, but we are giving you these Federal funds so you can make a decision about what is best for your community. That is what community development block grants are all about. There is not a one-size-fits-all Federal-Washington-way to spend these dollars. That is why I cannot understand why some people here want to make the kinds of dangerous cuts to these block grants that some want to make. We know the Senate bill includes a little more than $3.15 billion for these block grants--less than the 2013 bill, but it is $352 million more than the President asked for this year--``this year'' meaning 2014. According to calculations by HUD, the funding level provided in the Senate bill will support an estimated 80,900 jobs--twice the level in the House bill--80,900 jobs. That is a good reason to support the Senate bill. That is not the only reason standing alone, but that is a big jobs number. The House bill contains the lowest amount ever provided to the program. I wish we could stand and say: You know what, communities across the country do not need block grants. They do not need to even decide what is best for the community because all of the problems are taken care of. Everything is wonderful. All of those communities are in perfect shape, so let's just have a big cut to the program. That would be an interesting scenario if it were true. The reality is that in a lot of communities they have had to deal with the ravages of a foreclosure crisis where the greatest number of Americans ever probably lost their homes--maybe the highest number since the 1930s, No. 1. No. 2, they had to deal with the jobs crisis in addition to the foreclosure crisis. Of course the two are closely related. We just went below half a million people out of work in Pennsylvania, but we are still at about 490,000 people out of work. So these communities that have had to deal with several avalanches of problems--foreclosure crisis, jobs crisis, and then all of the results of both of these, all of the trauma that has been heaped on these communities, now we are told by some in Washington: Your problems are solved. You do not need any grant funding from the Federal Government to help you decide what is best for your community, whether you are going to use it for foreclosure mitigation or whether you are going to use it for job creation, whether you are going to use that limited resource from the Federal Government to bring a company into your town. You are being told that, in essence, by implication, you do not need that. That is really an insult to local communities across the country. We know that the block grant program began in 1975. In its first year it was funded at a $2.47 billion number. Why do I give that specific number from the 1970s? Well, up until now that is the lowest amount it has ever received but still $837 million more than the level provided by the House bill. So what the House is doing here is setting records they should not want to set to be in a race to see who can in a more devastating fashion almost decapitate the block grant program. Since the program started, the number of grantees has doubled, making the impact of the cuts even greater on communities. These community development block grants allow 47 Pennsylvania communities to address local needs. They get to decide, not the Federal Government. They get the resources, and they decide at the local level. We know that countless communities have received these funds. These funds have also been made available to State governments. Municipalities depend on this funding for economic development projects, which I mentioned before. To give you some examples of individual cities, the city of Philadelphia, which has had an unemployment rate at 10 percent or above for as long as anyone can remember--we are into several years now where the unemployment rate has been 10 or higher, meaning that between 60,000 and 70,000 or more people have been out of work in that city. CDBG funding in Philadelphia was used to stem the foreclosure crisis, helping nearly 4,000 homeowners avoid foreclosure through housing counseling, funded by the Community Development Block Grant Program. Prior to the funding cuts, these grants provided annually enough resources that 2,818 jobs were created. Now, in a city that has had 60,000 to 70,000 people out of work consistently for several years, 2,818 jobs is a lot of jobs. Philadelphia is a big city, but that is still a lot of jobs that are directly a result of community development block grant funding. That is why you hear from mayors that are Democrats and Republicans and Independents. Whatever their party, they all seem to come together on these block grant funds because they know they are better judges of what is best for their communities. The City of Philadelphia developed its own foreclosure mitigation program. They developed the program. They came up with the idea, implemented it, and then used Federal money to support it. Yet you have some people in Washington saying: Do not worry about it. You do not need those funds. We are going to decide what the priorities in your town are. That is really what they are saying. They may not want to hear this, but that is what you are saying when you tell someone: We are going to drastically cut funding for a successful grant program that has funded projects that you have decided are important or that you may have even created, in the case of this foreclosure mitigation program. In essence, what they are saying is not just that we are going--that the House or the Senate or any part of our government is going to cut this program dramatically. They are making the decision for those local communities. So all of those folks in Washington who talk about local decisionmaking and then gut the program have their credibility dramatically undermined. I will give a few more examples before I wrap up. The City of Pittsburgh directed some of its grant dollars to promote home ownership and affordable housing. That is our second largest city using these grant funds in a way that was most important to them. The Lehigh Valley, which is the eastern seaboard of our State, just north of Philadelphia--cities such as Allentown, Bethlehem, Easton, those communities--used the funds to encourage private sector investment. So they made a decision in their communities that we are not going to use these funds for foreclosure mitigation or housing, we are going to focus on job creation. We are going to focus on getting private sector businesses to locate in the Lehigh Valley in Pennsylvania. They made that decision, not us. They made that decision. Some people in the House think they should substitute their judgment for the people of the Lehigh Valley in Pennsylvania. I think that is a mistake. In Lancaster and York Counties down in the southern border of our State, a portion of these grant funds was used to reduce blight and revitalize historic downtowns. Again, they made that decision. They have used these dollars for that. None of those communities are saying these dollars should not be safeguarded, should not be spent and treated as precious taxpayer dollar resources. No one is saying they should not be scrutinized. No one is saying they should not be audited. No one is saying they should not be carefully examined as to how they spend those dollars. All they are saying to us is let's keep the community development block grant at a reasonable level. We are not asking for the Moon, not asking for a doubling of the funding or some great amount of money that the Federal Government cannot afford. But they are saying: Let us decide that. Washington decides a lot of things. That is the way our system works. But on this one they are saying to us: Let us decide, not Washington. So we know the value of the program. We know that over the past few years these grant funds have been reduced by nearly 25 percent. So just level funding, unfortunately, becomes a significant victory. Further loss of funds will directly harm these communities that rely upon these grant funds to address their most pressing needs. As I mentioned, mayors across the country rely upon these grants for vital services. I have heard directly from mayors in both parties about this. So further cuts to the block grant program will have a detrimental effect on cities and municipalities, some of which are the ones that have suffered the most from the foreclosure crisis, from the economic recession and the job-killing impact of that recession. If they are not digging out, they have just gotten out of the hole. They are not feeling all that secure yet. These grant funds allow them to make these decisions, allow them to make the investments they want to make. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise this afternoon to talk about one of the aspects of the debate that is occurring and which has taken place over a long period of time but especially today, when it comes to Senate rules and what is happening on nominations and confirmations. One major aspect of that debate relates to the National Labor Relations Act passed in the 1930s. I wish to start by highlighting one of the findings that undergirds one of the foundations of that act. In the mid-1930s, because of labor strife and because of the conflicts between management and labor, people in both parties came together and said we had to put in place legislation to deal with that or we couldn't have the kind of growing economy we would hope to have. One of the findings--it is the third finding in the 1935 act--says as follows: Experience has proved that protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce-- Safeguards commerce, I repeat those words-- safeguards commerce from the injury, impairment, or interruption, and promotes the flow of commerce by removing certain recognized sources of industrial strife and unrest, by encouraging practices fundamental to the friendly adjustment of industrial disputes arising out of differences as to wages, hours, or other working conditions, and by restoring equality of bargaining power between employers and employees. So says one of the main findings of the 1935 act. There is an additional finding that speaks to it from the employer's vantage point--how it is important to the free flow of commerce to have disputes settled. That is where we started in the 1930s. From that date forward-- decades now of work and practice--we have had labor-management disputes settled and determined by use of the procedures in the National Labor Relations Act. Obviously, fundamental to that was the National Labor Relations Board--NLRB, the acronym. But here we are and we will not have, in just a number of weeks from now, in August we will not have a functioning board because of the conflict in the Senate about this issue and because of the debate between intrasession appointments and intersession--meaning appointments within a session of the Senate as opposed to appointments outside, from one session to the other. I will speak about that in a moment, but first I wanted to highlight one of the real-world consequences of this. Sometimes we have debates around here and they tend to be a little theoretical, a little removed from the reality of life. Here is a real- life story about how these appointments matter. Marcus Hedger was illegally fired in 2010 from his pressman's job at an Illinois printing company for his union activities. Last September, a unanimous National Labor Relations Board--two Democrats, one Republican at that time-- ruled that he should get his job back with backpay. There aren't many disputes settled here that are unanimous. That has not happened yet. That was in 2010. The NLRB decision in the Hedger case has been vacated because of the decision of the court of appeals regarding, as I mentioned before, these recess appointments. Hedger has lost his house in the meantime. This is what Marcus Hedger said, and I think we should all listen and act upon these words: So, almost three years later, I still don't have my job back, even though the NLRB unanimously ruled I should get my job back. I am asking the United States Senate to do what is right for the people who gave you the power to represent them, and to confirm the bipartisan package of nominees to the NLRB so that other workers can have their rights protected, just like the NLRB tried to protect my rights. ``My rights'' meaning the rights of Mr. Hedger. That is what he is telling us to do--to do our jobs. I don't have time today because of the limitations of time we have, but there are stories as well that speak to this from the employer's side. Listen to this one headline involving Walmart. The headline is from earlier this year, a Reuters headline, dated January 31, 2013: ``Walmart Protestors Will Stop Picketing After Reaching Deal With NLRB.'' So we have a board which for decades has functioned, helping to resolve disputes, sometimes to the betterment or to the advantage of one side versus the other, but settling those disputes nonetheless. There is a lot of attention paid to what I would call kind of the inside baseball of this. It is about the difference between intrasession and intersession. But here is the record, despite what some in Washington have asserted. Here is the record going back over many Presidencies, just to give four Presidencies by way of example, and this idea that an appointment cannot be made during an intrasession--within the session of the Senate: President Carter made one intrasession appointment to the National Labor Relations Board. President Reagan made four. President Clinton made two. President George W. Bush made four intrasession appointments to the National Labor Relations Board. Since President Reagan's first term--more than a generation ago--in addition to the members of the NLRB, hundreds of other recess appointments have been made intrasession. So the idea that this is somehow a new development does not bear the scrutiny of the record. I know we are out of time, but I rise to remind us what this Board has meant to this country. I read that first section principally to highlight the fact that the flow of commerce is mentioned twice--the flow of commerce. This isn't an act that says this act is to promote one side versus the other; it is all about the flow of commerce, the movement of goods, economic activity, so we can keep the country moving. Obviously, in the past, when there was unprecedented strife, we would have whole lines of production or whole sectors of our economy shut down because we didn't have a National Labor Relations Act and because we didn't have a National Labor Relations Board. I end with the words of Marcus Hedger, who has suffered mightily-- first, he is discriminated against; that is adverse to his life and his family. Then, when a decision is made in 2010, the decision is meaningless so far to him because he hasn't been granted the remedy and he lost his house in the meantime. Here is what he said, and I will end with these words: Companies shouldn't be able to get away with firing someone just because they stood up for their rights. That's un- American. We need a functioning NLRB to protect us and our rights. That is what Marcus Hedger said. We should bear in mind those words. We should get the job done and get five people who are before the Senate voted on and confirmed so we can have that free flow of commerce and provide a remedy for people such as Marcus Hedger. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I would like to speak today about the importance of Federal investment in biomedical research. There are many reasons to invest in biomedical research, but the two most important reasons are very simple: biomedical research saves lives, and it is good for Pennsylvania's economy and the Nation's economy. A thriving biomedical sector creates jobs, and we simply cannot afford, from a public health or economic standpoint, not to support biomedical progress. I have been a strong and vocal advocate for Federal funds to support biomedical research, including funding for the National Institutes of Health--NIH. In 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013, I authored a letter in support of funding for the NIH; the letter in 2013 was signed by a bipartisan group of 51 Senators. In 2012, Pennsylvania researchers received $1,431,589,539--$1.4 billion--in grants from the National Institutes of Health; the State is ranked fourth in the Nation for the number of grants awarded. The funding in 2012 supported over 3,400 competitive grants to almost 100 Pennsylvania companies or universities; in turn, these grants supported thousands of jobs across the State--an estimated 2,500 in state jobs and total employment impact of over 24,000 jobs. Long-term deficits are not sustainable, and government spending must be reduced; however, we should not indiscriminately slash funding for good programs, like medical research, that benefit Pennsylvanians, ensure our global competitiveness and invest in our economic future. I have been a champion for the continued growth of the National Institutes of Health, NIH, which drives progress of biomedical research. While the United States has been the world leader in medical research, other nations such as China are dramatically ramping up their investment in medical research, creating new competition and threatening America's dominance in the field. We must continue to invest in medical research and maintain the capacity we currently have to support work that benefits all Americans. We risk a scenario in which promising young researchers, seeing the struggles of their mentors and older colleagues to secure funding for their work, will choose a different path, putting a whole generation of scientists at risk. That capacity, that talent, once lost will not easily come back. Failure to invest in research now is a failure to invest in our own future, and is incredibly shortsighted. We must work to support the basic research that has the potential to lead to major advances in medical treatments and improved outcomes for patients.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise this evening to make some brief comments regarding a judicial nominee we voted on yesterday--one of two--Judge Luis Restrepo from Philadelphia, from the southeastern corner of Pennsylvania. I rise tonight because my train was late last night so I was not able to make some comments about his nomination, his qualifications, prior to the vote. But I was honored that he received the vote of the Senate last night. I also rise because it is timely in another way because we are considering immigration reform. I was on the floor last week talking about yet another judicial nominee from Pennsylvania--now a judge, as of last week. Judge Nitza Quinones, who is a native of Puerto Rico, came to this country after her education and became a lawyer and an advocate, and then, ultimately, a judge for more than two decades now, and now will serve on the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. So it is true of now Judge Restrepo. A native of Colombia, Judge Restrepo became a U.S. citizen in 1993. He earned a bachelor of arts degree from the University of Pennsylvania in 1981 and a juris doctor degree from Tulane University's School of Law in 1986. He is highly regarded by lawyers and members of the bench. He exhibits an extraordinary command of the law and legal principles, as well as a sense of fairness, sound judgment, and integrity. Judge Restrepo has served as a magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania since June of 2006. Prior to his judicial appointment, he was a highly regarded lawyer and a founding member of the Kreasner & Restrepo firm in Philadelphia, concentrating on both civil rights litigation as well as criminal defense work. He served as an assistant Federal defender with the Community Federal Defender for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania from 1990 to 1993, and as an assistant defender at the Defender Association of Philadelphia from 1987 to 1990. An adjunct professor at Temple University's James E. Bensley School of Law, he was also an adjunct professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Law from 1997 to 2009 and has taught with the National Institute for Trial Advocacy in regional and national programs since 1992. I know the Presiding Officer knows something about being a law professor and the demands of that job and the demands of being an advocate. I think anyone who looks at Judge Restrepo's biography and background would agree he is more than prepared to be a Federal district judge, and I am grateful that the Senate confirmed him. Finally, Judge Restrepo has also served on the board of governors of the Philadelphia Bar Association and is a past president of the Hispanic Bar Association of Pennsylvania. So for all those reasons and more, I believe he is not only ready to be a Federal judge, but I am also here to express gratitude for his confirmation and for the vote in the Senate. As we consider immigration reform, we should be ever inspired by the stories we hear from not only judges who are nominated and confirmed here, but others as well who come to this country, who work hard, who learn a lot, and want to give back to their country by way of public service. Judge Restrepo, this week, and Judge Quinones, last week, are two fine examples of that. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President. I am honored to join my fellow Senators as we remember our friend and colleague Senator Frank Lautenberg. A dedicated public servant, Frank proudly represented New Jersey almost continuously from 1982 until his death. Long before reaching the Senate, Frank Lautenberg had proven himself a patriot. Following his high school graduation, Frank enlisted in the Army and served his country in Europe as a member of the Army Signal Corps during the Second World War. A member of the ``Greatest Generation'' and the last World War II veteran to serve in the Senate, Frank was a true public servant. Motivated by the desire to give back to the country that provided him with so much, Frank's work in the Senate improved the lives of all Americans and left a lasting impact on our Nation. Through his legislative efforts, Senator Lautenberg helped to safeguard our Nation's transportation infrastructure, increase access to quality healthcare, and ensure that the brave men and women who serve our country today will have access to the same benefits and opportunities that Frank frequently credited with his success. Frank's strong moral character often made him a leader on some of the most pressing issues of the day, and his efforts will undoubtedly leave a lasting legacy. Having cast more than 9,000 votes on the floor--more than any previous Senator from New Jersey--Frank played an influential role in shaping important policies, directing funding, and helping people in need. On a personal note, I will always recall what a privilege it was to travel to Israel and Turkey with Frank in 2009 as part of a Congressional delegation. I admired his strong support of Israel and he will certainly be remembered as a tireless friend and advocate. In closing, I am reminded of a quotation from President Kennedy. Senator Frank Lautenberg truly was ``someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people--their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties.'' We will miss him in this Chamber but our country and our children have a brighter future because of his dedicated service.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, Saturday, June 15, 2013, marks the completion of the Great Allegheny Passage. This 150-mile trail provides an uninterrupted, nonmotorized passageway for travelers to hike or bike from Cumberland, MD, to Pittsburgh, PA. The Great Allegheny Passage connects to the C&O Canal Towpath, which leads from Washington, DC, to Cumberland, MD, creating an uninterrupted route between our Nation's Capital and the Forks of the Ohio. President Theodore Roosevelt once stated, ``Conservation means development as much as it does protection.'' The Great Allegheny Passage is an excellent example of an area that Americans have worked to conserve in such a way. The development of the passage has greatly improved the trail, while preserving its natural beauty for all to enjoy. The Great Allegheny Passage is a wonderful place for Americans of all ages to engage in our rich cultural history, enjoy the varied natural history of great river valleys, and experience a range from rural to urban communities. The Great Allegheny Passage significantly benefits the surrounding communities in many ways. Trails increase the quality of life in a community. The proximity to rivers, trails, and greenways is an important factor when people and businesses are deciding where to live or invest in new properties. Employees who work near such areas will reduce their commuting costs by walking or biking to work. The Great Allegheny Passage increases tourism to the surrounding areas. Americans realize that using such a trail is an environmentally responsible way to spend their time. The trail attracts people to the area, which greatly benefits the local communities. Trail users create a demand for more lodging, restaurants, and sporting equipment stores. New jobs will be created as entrepreneurs continue to bring tourism and service based businesses to the area. The Great Allegheny Passage is truly a unique path through a significant corridor. I encourage Pennsylvanians and all Americans to enjoy the natural beauty of America by visiting the Great Allegheny Passage, now, and for years to come.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I know we are going to be voting in a matter of minutes on two judicial nominees for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which is the eastern side of our State. Obviously, these appointments are critically important to justice and critically important to litigants who come before these courts, whether they are civil or criminal matters. These candidates go through an exhaustive review process. That is probably an understatement. The process includes the nomination through the White House under any administration and then the process continues through the Senate. There are all kinds of reviews. So we are finally to this point. It has been a very long road and we are grateful for that. One of the votes will be by voice potentially and one will be a rollcall vote. I wish to speak about both candidates. I spoke about them yesterday, but I will speak briefly this morning. First of all, Judge Quinones, who has served in the city of Philadelphia, has served on the common pleas court in the city of Philadelphia since 1991, in what is known as the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, which is the trial court in the city of Philadelphia. One can just imagine, in a big city such as Philadelphia, all of the matters a judge such as Judge Quinones would deal with over the course of more than two decades now, dealing with civil and criminal cases, all kinds of difficult and complex matters that come before a judge. In essence, she has been performing the same functions as a county judge that she would on the Federal district court. So I think she is more than prepared to take on this assignment. In her case, this is also a great American story. Judge Quinones was born in Puerto Rico, educated there, and came to the United States. As I said, since 1991 she has been on the court of common pleas in Philadelphia. Prior to that, she was an arbitrator for more than a decade. She worked in the Department of Veterans Affairs. She worked in the Department of Health and Human Services. She did a lot of work in the 1970s for Community Legal Services of Philadelphia. So that speaks to a broad range of experience and expertise dealing with litigants and representing clients, which is so important in our system. She is someone who takes on the responsibility to represent someone in court so they may have their day in court, which is one of the foundational principles of our government. Then, of course, she later served as a judge, as I mentioned. So it is not only a resume and a life story that speaks to experience and knowledge and insight when it comes to dealing with complex matters that come before the Federal courts, but it is also in a very personal way a great American story. So I am particularly grateful that her nomination is now coming to the Senate floor and that we will be able to have a vote on her nomination today. I have enjoyed working with Senator Toomey on both of these nominations. Both of us represent a big and diverse State, one Democrat and one Republican, working through this process together, these judicial appointments. We will be voting as well on a second judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania: Judge Jeffrey Schmehl. I can say a lot of the same things about his experience. Judge Schmehl is now and has been the president judge of the Berks County Court of Common Pleas since 2007. So for many years now he has been in the trenches, so to speak, or to use an expression from the Bible, ``laboring the vineyards,'' dealing with cases of complex issues. Berks County, just by way of geographic orientation, is north of Philadelphia but on the eastern side of our State. It is a big county. It is a county that has a lot of matters that come before it that are particularly complex. He has served, as I mentioned, as the president judge of the court of common pleas, but then prior to that he was a judge on that same court from 1998 to 2007. So these are long periods of time, in both instances, for Judge Schmehl and Judge Quinones to serve on a court. For those who know something about our judicial system and know a bit about the difference between an appellate court, where we are dealing with appeals and legal arguments, as opposed to a trial court, which is where the action is in terms of litigants, trial judges have to preside over a trial as well as deal with and rule on evidentiary matters. They have to deal with witnesses and lawyers and all the complexities of a trial. As we all know, when your case is on trial, it is the most important case in the world. So these judges have tremendous experience as trial judges, and we are so grateful they are willing to put themselves forward not just to be nominated and today confirmed as judges, as I am sure they will be, but to put themselves forward for that kind of public service in a difficult environment, where the scrutiny and the review and the long road from nomination to confirmation can be very challenging. So again I will pay tribute to the work Senator Toomey has done working with us. He is on the floor, and I wish to thank him for that good work. And obviously I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, who is on the floor as well. We appreciate him working with our offices to move these nominations forward. With that, I yield the floor.