Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise, as so many of us have of late, to talk about the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. This invasion, as we know, started on February 24, and it is now, I guess, in its 21st or 22nd day. At the time of the invasion--I think it was the day after or 2 days after--I was reading in a newspaper the reference to one resident of Ukraine who said the following about the onset of the hostilities by Vladimir Putin and Russia: It was the worst sunrise in my life. I can't even begin to imagine what that individual in Ukraine or tens of thousands of families were feeling on that day, and hundreds of thousands throughout the country--millions, even. This attack, which is ongoing, was both unprovoked and unjustified. It is an attack on a sovereign nation by a murderous dictator who has no regard for human life and no regard for the rules-based international order. I think a lot of people knew that before the invasion, but now it is abundantly clear to the world what Vladimir Putin's intentions are and what his practices are when it comes to attacking a sovereign nation. The New York Times told us last Friday, March 11, about Putin. I am quoting here from the New York Times, and they made reference in this story to his actions in Syria, as well as Chechnya: [H]e has demonstrated in [the] past . . . a willingness not only to bomb heavily populated areas indiscriminately but also to use civilian casualties as leverage against his enemies. ``[U]se civilian casualties as leverage''--that is the dictator that the people of Ukraine are dealing with right now. And I think it is clear from the reporting, and so many Americans have read the stories and have seen the coverage of the bombings. It is clear that he is bombing indiscriminately. It is clear that he and his army, his military, are targeting civilians. All you have to do is look at the list of locations. And the list would be hundreds if we read all of them, but here are just a couple examples. Maybe the most graphic in the last couple of days was the bombing of a maternity ward and that footage of a stretcher coming out of that rubble with a pregnant woman, who has since died, as did her child. That is an example of that kind of indiscriminate bombing. But in addition to a maternity ward, he has bombed a shoe factory, a psychiatric hospital, apartment buildings, cafes, homes, parking lots near a shopping center, bombing near a kindergarten, bombing of a mosque, bombing--we are told, the most recent number--34 medical facilities, damaged in Ukraine. And that number, of course, will grow. Most recently, just in the last day or so, a supermarket, and, I think, at least a 12-story residential tower. And then, just today, another reference to just one example of the brutality of Putin: 10 people killed waiting in line for bread in Ukraine. The adviser to the mayor of one of the most besieged cities, Mariupol, said the following. This adviser said: Humanity has not yet invented a word to describe what Russia is doing to us. I think that says it all. There is no way to describe what is happening. The world has never seen this, in recent history. Maybe the closest example would be what happened in Syria, which, of course, was also paid for and led by the Russian military, Mr. Putin. Despite all that horror and all that bloodshed and all that is to follow, despite all of that grim reminder of the brutality of Mr. Putin, the Ukrainian people have inspired so many of us. When I say ``us,'' I don't mean just voting Members of Congress or people throughout the country. They have inspired people the world over. I have never seen anything in my lifetime that equates to the inspiration that they have generated; their courage--the raw physical courage of the people, of the military, and all the contributions they are making to their country--their resolute determination to protect their freedom, to protect their families, to protect their nation, and, really, when you think about it in a larger sense, to protect democracy itself, because that is really very much on the line in Ukraine. The Ukrainian people's stubborn refusal to be intimidated by a ruthless autocrat and his military has inspired so many people every single day. I just saw another example this morning. Women who have left Ukraine with their children, to bring their children to safety, coming back into Ukraine to join the fight or, in some cases, I guess, to rejoin the fight--women putting their lives at risk for their country. This morning the Presiding Officer and all of us, the Members of Congress, had the honor to listen to President Zelenskyy's address to the Congress, and I know the Nation saw it as well. His address this morning was also inspiring, every bit as inspiring as that engendered by his people. But his address was also a call to action for us to do more. We have got to do more. And we have got to provide additional support. President Zelenskyy thanked our President, President Biden, and the American people for all the support that we have provided, especially in the last couple of weeks since the invasion began but also before that. And President Biden responded just 2 or 3 hours later when he announced even more military assistance or security assistance, which, if you add up just that part of the support, just since he took office, is now at about $2 billion. That doesn't include other support like humanitarian support. But here is just a quick list of what that security assistance is. I will just itemize a few. This isn't exhaustive, but it is just some examples: Stinger anti-aircraft systems--we provided many hundreds of them, and now we are providing a lot more than that--the Javelin anti- armor systems that have had such success against the Russian military, Russian tanks; helicopters; patrol boats; grenade launchers; guns and ammunition; grenades; mortar and artillery rounds; secure communications; military medical equipment; on and on and on. And, as I mentioned, the President responded specifically today by announcing that the United States will add $800 million just on security assistance, bringing that total, as I said, to $2 billion since he began his administration. It was noteworthy that two of the component parts of that--the Stinger systems and the Javelins--both are being used with great skill by the Ukrainian fighters. The increase in those numbers is not just a few hundred. In both cases it is either doubling or tripling what we have already done. And we will do more. We will continue to do more. Congress has passed a spending bill just a couple of days ago, at the end of last week, and the President signed it this week, which allowed that $800 million to be available. So that is the good news: more money for weapons and other security assistance, more money for humanitarian support. That number is growing all the time because of the need that the Ukrainian people have. The sanctions--the crushing, unprecedented sanctions--that already are having effect. I had a briefing today just on that topic of the impact of the sanctions, and it is substantial, and it will only grow as time goes by. We will have more time later to talk about that. And, of course, the contribution, as well--all of these are contributions of not just our government but our people. The American people made these contributions of military assistance and humanitarian support and our ability to impose sanctions with our allies, with our NATO partners. But at the same time, what gets lost sometimes in the discussion about Ukraine is the intelligence support we have provided--all kinds of offices throughout our intelligence community providing actionable intelligence or intelligence that the Ukrainians can use if they fight the battle, fight the war. That is probably incalculable in terms of the advantages given on the battlefield and beyond. So that bears emphasis as well. I think one area of positive development in the last couple of months is the unity, not just the unity of NATO, which has never been stronger, probably never stronger since the 1960s or even more so, but the unity here at home--unity in the Senate, unity in the House, unity throughout the country to support the people of Ukraine--the people but also to support the military. I have to say, though, as much as we have that unity with our NATO partners and here in the Congress, there are voices here in Washington and around the country that are not as unified. We know the voice of our former President and his continued approval of Putin's ``genius.'' Why would you ever say that about a murderous dictator? He is not a genius. He is, I believe, a war criminal, but that kind of language and that kind of support for Putin, at least by way of laudatory words, has tarnished that unity, has undermined that unity here at home and around the world. But it is not enough to break that unity. I just hope that Republican Members of Congress, when someone in their party, especially a leader of their party or a Member of Congress or any other Republican official--I hope that when they say things about Vladimir Putin that are positive or in any way supportive that they would call it out and condemn it. When you are supporting the people of Ukraine at a time of war, you have to use every tool in your toolbox: military assistance, diplomacy, sanctions, humanitarian support, but also your words as leaders. And we should be condemning any American leader who supports or says positive things about Mr. Putin. I hope the Republican Members of Congress who have stood up and been very supportive of the Ukrainian people in this fight would also call out Members of their party and condemn such statements because that didn't happen in July of 2018, when the former President--in my judgment, this is my view of it--was genuflecting before Vladimir Putin on the world stage in Helsinki, Finland, in probably what I believe is maybe the worst day for an American President on the world stage ever when he took the side of Mr. Putin, a murderous dictator, over the determinations made by our intelligence community about the previous election. That was a low moment for America, for our democracy, and for our country. We now have, I think, very clearly a choice. It is not a choice of three or four options or five options. There are only two options here: You can choose Mr. Putin or choose Mr. Zelenskyy. You can choose a dictator who has no regard for human life and all of the enablers around him, or you can choose the President who is standing up for freedom, Mr. Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine. It is really a simple choice. It is a choice between the incarnation of evil and the personification of freedom. That is the choice. There is not a third option here. Every American has to make this choice, but especially Members of Congress, elected officials. That is part of our job. You have to make a choice, and it is very simple. The good news is Republicans, Democrats, and Independents--House and Senate, the two branches of government--have made a choice, and the American people have made a choice. They made a choice for freedom to support that personification of freedom by supporting Mr. Zelenskyy and his government in this war, by supporting the Ukrainian people, who are literally putting their lives on the line for freedom itself. I will conclude with these thoughts. Like our Constitution that we turn to for both--not just guidance and inspiration, but we turn to, to remind ourselves of our duty, so, too, are the people of Ukraine turning to their Constitution for that guidance and that inspiration and that call to action. Here is what that Constitution says in pertinent part, and it sounds very familiar: The people are the bearers of sovereignty and the only sources of power in Ukraine . . . To affirm and ensure human rights and freedoms is the main duty of the State. That is what the Ukrainian Constitution says, a mandate that freedom must be the goal and the work of the State. Wow, are they doing that now. President Zelenskyy and his government and the people of Ukraine are standing up for freedom. When we are at our best here at home, we do the same. We have a great anthem for our Nation: ``O beautiful''--and you know the rest of that great anthem. One of the verses of that great anthem says: O beautiful for patriot dream that sees beyond the years. The dream of a patriot isn't just to stand up in the moment and fight, but that patriot is standing up for freedom, fighting and willing to put their lives on the line--or his or her life on the line--for freedom because they are seeing beyond the years. They are standing up for freedom, not just for themselves and their families and their nation, but for the future--for the future of that nation. That is what the people of Ukraine are doing right now, and that is why we have to continue to support them in that great fight. I think most Americans have already made the choice. We just have to back them up and stand for freedom--not to stand for the incarnation of evil, Mr. Putin and his government right now, but to stand for the personification of freedom. We saw that this morning with President Zelenskyy. 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. Madam President, I rise this evening to share the urgent need to pass a bipartisan bill, a piece of legislation we have been working on for years now that will save the lives of children. Every year, emergency rooms across the country treat over 22,000 preventable injuries--22,000 preventable injuries--caused by falling furniture, like dressers or television sets. On average, roughly half-- half--of those injured are children, and of the vast majority of those killed by furniture tip-overs, some 81 percent are children. Eighty-one percent of all those killed by furniture tip-overs are children. The death of a child is an unspeakable loss. There is no way to calculate it, and if you haven't lived through it, I don't think any of us can understand what some families have lived through. Yet in America, the most powerful Nation on the Earth, in less than 20 years, more than 460 children have been killed by these furniture tip-overs, and that number is the reported fatality number. Compounding the grief and loss that these families experience is the fact that these deaths might have been prevented. The answer here is pretty simple: mandatory stability standards that would make our homes safer for our children. For years now, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Cotton, and I have led a bipartisan effort to pass the STURDY Act. Here is what all of the letters in that acronym stand for: The Stop Tip-overs of Unstable, Risky Dressers on Youth. We call it the STURDY Act. The STURDY Act would require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to create a mandatory stability standard for furniture. That is all it does. It would create a mandatory stability standard. It would require companies to ensure their products are tested for safety and stability before being sold. It is a simple, commonsense requirement that will save the lives of children and prevent injuries. Families in Pennsylvania and across the Nation have been waiting too long for the Senate to act. There are families like the Lamberts and the Collases who have experienced every parent's worst nightmare--the loss of a child. These families have given my staff permission for me to share their stories tonight on the Senate floor. These are two stories I will start with. You can see on my left, Katie Lambert. Katie Lambert, in 2005, was 3 years old, just 3 years old. Her mom Judy describes her as ``everything a three-year-old child should be-- full of love and spontaneity.'' Katie loved Thomas the Tank Engine; she loved Buzz Lightyear; and, of course, she loved her older brothers. Katie's family had just moved into their new home in Huntingdon Valley, PA, in Southeastern Pennsylvania. One day, Katie was playing in her room while her mom painted the room next-door. Suddenly, Judy heard an ``awful crash'' as she described it. Judy ran into the room to find 3-year-old Katie crushed beneath a tall, mirrored wardrobe. The wardrobe had been on carpet and was unstable. Judy said: While we don't know what Katie was doing, she was probably dancing and watching herself in the mirrors. She may have bumped up against it or tried to open one of the doors or maybe the vibration of her dancing in the room was just enough to cause it to become unstable and fall forward on her. That is what her mom Judy said. You can see in this photograph a beautiful little child, Katie Lambert, who died on that day. As her mom Judy held her, waiting for an ambulance to arrive, Katie took her last breath. She would have been 21 years old this year, and Judy wonders what she would be like today. What would she look like as a young woman? What college would she have chosen and what career path? Would she like spicy food like her brothers do? Judy Lambert wanted me to share a message today, and it is quoted right here on this poster: Please, do everything you can to ensure that no other family suffers the pain we do. So said a mom about what we should do when we think of this child. Then, Judy went on to say: I am begging you to pass the STURDY Act now. We should listen to her words and act. The second child I will talk about tonight is Curren Collas. Another family, the Collas family, experienced a similar tragedy in their home in West Chester, PA. Curren was just 2 years old--2 years old--with blond hair and deep blue eyes that his mom Jackie described as ``soulful.'' Curren loved his cars. He would carefully display his collection of them in a perfect line. In February of 2014, Jackie walked into Curren's bedroom to wake him for the day. She discovered Curren's five-drawer dresser had fallen on him. Curren was trapped between it and his bed. As she waited for an ambulance to arrive, Jackie tried to resuscitate Curren but was later told by the paramedics that he had no vital signs when they took over. In the months after Curren's death, Jackie would sometimes stumble on his toy cars, hidden around the house--reminders of her spirited son, Curren. Obviously, Jackie and her family's lives will never ever be the same. Here is what she told us in memory of her son. She said: Even if I live until 100, it's going to be before Curren and after Curren. Just two stories tell us all we need to know about why we have to pass this bill. We could tell a lot more from Pennsylvania and so many other States that are represented by those Senators I mentioned and represented by Senators from other States. There is no reason--no reason at all--for families to endure this unimaginable grief, but, tragically, families across the Nation share similar stories of losing children to these horrific furniture tipover accidents. You will hear more of their stories from my colleagues in the days ahead. In the memory of Katie and Curren and so many others who were lost to their families--killed in these tragedies--we must pass the STURDY Act. It is not complicated. It is not complicated at all. We must ensure that the furniture sold to consumers is tested--tested for safety and tested for stability. Congress must do all it can. We in the Senate must do all we can to ensure that no more children--no more children-- are harmed or killed by furniture tipovers. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 539, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 219, S. 2299.

Mr. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time.

Mr. CASEY. I know of no further debate on the bill.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I have nine 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 Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 203, S. 66.

Mr. CASEY. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. The Senate will not be in session tomorrow.

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it recess until 10 a.m. on Thursday, March 10; and that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate be in a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I am here today for two purposes. I will start with the first. The first is to rise in support of advancing the nomination of Elizabeth Watson to serve as the Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs at the Department of Labor. Ms. Watson is a highly qualified nominee who was nominated in April of last year, almost a year ago now. She has spent most of her career advocating for workers through labor and economic policy. Ms. Watson previously served as labor policy director and chief labor counsel on the House Committee on Education and Labor. Given her labor expertise and commitment to public service, she would be an enormous asset to the Department of Labor. It is past due that the Senate confirm her nomination. Ms. Watson is one of many excellent pro-worker nominees that have been put forward by the Biden-Harris administration. Working families and unions built the American middle class, and working families and unions helped to make the Nation what it is today--the strongest, most powerful nation in the world. Every worker in America deserves to be paid a living wage and treated with dignity and respect. Over the past few decades, corporations have worked to undermine and weaken workers' fundamental rights to organize and collectively bargain. We should, for example, pass the PRO Act, which would safeguard and strengthen workers' fundamental right to organize and ensure that workers are able to decide whether or not to join a union through a fair process. It would help restore fairness to an economy that has been rigged against workers for too long. We owe it to workers and families to create an economy that works for them, not for corporate interests. Pro-worker nominees, like Elizabeth Watson, will help us realize this goal. The Senate should advance her nomination. So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 687, Elizabeth Schoff Watson, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor; that the nomination be confirmed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any related statements be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all postcloture time on the Pagan nomination be considered expired, with all previous provisions remaining in effect.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I would ask consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this evening to talk about Black History Month and, in particular, to talk about a program that my office has been presenting every February for many years now. Each February, it has been my privilege to honor several Pennsylvanians as part of the celebration of Black History Month. This year, we pay tribute to four esteemed Pennsylvanians who have helped their community and the Commonwealth build resilience. And I will list them first, and then I will be talking about each of them in greater detail: First, Tyrone Holmes, from my hometown of Scranton, PA; Della Clark of Philadelphia, PA; Julius Boatwright of Pittsburgh; and Theo Braddy of Harrisburg--all Pennsylvanians. And their work is demonstrative of this year's theme for our program: ``Resilience in the Face of Adversity.'' As their persistence and strength has helped their communities surmount significant difficulties this year, their enduring leadership is an encouragement to me after a year where, sadly, resilience has been sorely needed throughout our Commonwealth and throughout our country. Now, in some ways, we have made some progress in the last year. Just consider this: The national economy created 6.7 million jobs, the most ever in the first year of a Presidency. Pennsylvania's unemployment rate went way down from 7.1 to 5.4. Tens of thousands of jobs have been added just in Pennsylvania. Wages are up, and child poverty is down. The number of fully vaccinated Americans has increased from 2 million to 213 million in just the last year. And we have more tools to manage COVID-19 and keep us safe. And, finally, the number of schools open for in-person learning has skyrocketed from just 46 percent a year ago to now 95 percent of schools. Some believe it is as high as 98 percent. However, despite those measures of progress, we are still grappling with so much--grappling with a virus that is adaptable and still deadly, especially for people with preexisting health conditions, and even more so for those who are unvaccinated. And as COVID-19 has lingered, so, too, have the attendant direct effects. Our schools still struggle to teach our kids and to maintain the regularity that is critical to learning. Our businesses must contend with fluctuating demand and a fragile supply chain. Many of our children have fallen behind on their other critical vaccinations and routine doctor visits. Many children and adults struggle with isolation and pandemic-related mental health challenges. We know that much of the adverse impact of COVID-19 has been particularly acute for communities of color. In the United States, Black Americans have experienced higher rates of COVID-19 hospitalization and death compared to White Americans. And Black Americans have had higher levels of COVID-19-related unemployment. Beyond the pandemic, other challenges remain. Systemic racism persists in our economy, in our schools, in our healthcare system, and, of course, in our criminal justice system, just to mention a few. And even as we strive as a nation to achieve our high ideals of liberty and freedom for all, we must openly acknowledge a history of discrimination and racism and reckon with its present-day manifestations and implications, including disturbing efforts around the country to turn back the clock on voting rights. It is only the challenges brought about by adversity that occasion the rise of resiliency and the triumphs of the human spirit and of community action that can lift all of us. The late Member of Congress, Shirley Chisholm, once said: Leadership is to have the vision for what is necessary and the courage to make it possible. Leadership is to have the vision for what is necessary and the courage to make it possible. Following a year of difficult challenges, it is fitting that as part of our Black History Month celebration, we honor innovative, courageous, and enterprising Pennsylvania leaders who have both the vision and the courage to help our communities and our Commonwealth to exhibit resilience in the face of that adversity.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, as our Nation battles another wave of COVID-19, I want to detail my efforts to lower barriers for Americans to access lifesaving vaccinations against this terrible disease. The Special Committee on Aging's investigation forced the largest commercial health insurer in the United States to reverse course and make whole providers who were paid far below the market rate for administering COVID-19 vaccines. These efforts will help ensure that every provider who can administer COVID-19 vaccines is doing so, helping get more shots in arms. Last year, news reports detailed how UnitedHealth had been shortchanging pediatricians who were vaccinating children against COVID-19. In short, Medicare set reimbursement rates for participating providers at $40 per dose in mid-March 2021. The Federal Government strongly recommended that private carriers do the same and most appear to have done so within weeks, but UnitedHealth did not. The committee's investigation found that UnitedHealth paid in-network providers roughly 40 percent below the Medicare rate until July 1, 2021. Further, the company delayed action to make providers whole. During the investigation, pediatricians in Pennsylvania and beyond raised concerns that UnitedHealth's original reimbursement rate could dissuade providers from administering the vaccine. UnitedHealth covers 26 million people in employer and individual market health insurance plans, with 1.4 million in-network providers and an estimated 14 percent market share. UnitedHealth's decision to reimburse providers below the Medicare rate had the potential to harm families across our Nation at a critical juncture, just as the Food and Drug Administration prepared to expand the availability of vaccines to children ages 5-11. For parents with questions about vaccines, pediatricians are trusted advisers who can play a key role in overcoming lingering concerns or hesitancy, which remains a major issue in our Nation. In the long term, ensuring that all hands are on deck to deliver vaccines will help end this pandemic. Data has shown time and again that being vaccinated against COVID-19 reduces infections, severe disease, hospitalization, and death. Vaccinating children also will help protect adults by increasing the number of Americans shielded from the virus, reducing its spread. It also reduces the chance for the virus to mutate and spawn variants, like Omicron, that has led to another wave of illness and death. These concerns are particularly important for older adults who are more likely than the general population to experience both severe COVID-19 and breakthrough infections. Vaccinating children helps protect older generations, particularly older adults living in multigenerational households, including more than 7 million grandparents who live with grandchildren under the age of 18. Providing more parents with the information they need to ensure they are comfortable vaccinating their kids will help protect all of our children. While pediatric hospitalizations remain relatively rare, there has nonetheless been a significant increase of such hospitalizations as the Omicron variant has spread in recent weeks. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that pediatric hospitalizations due to COVID-19 reached pandemic highs in the United States. Vaccinating more children is essential to keep schools open for in- person learning, a live issue for schools throughout our Nation that have been forced to return to online classes in the face of the Omicron variant. We must do all that we can to safely keep students in the classroom so that they can receive the high-quality education they deserve. School closures also cause a disruption in the lives of families, with parents often struggling to find childcare or forcing them to take time from work. Vaccinating children will help schools remain open, protect students and educators, and help parents stay in the workforce. After Aging Committee investigators reached out to UnitedHealth, the company quickly and voluntarily committed to change course, commitments I detailed in an October 20, 2021, letter. In response to my letter, UnitedHealth confirmed its plans to retroactively increase reimbursements for approximately 2 million COVID-19 vaccine administration claims to the Medicare rate across its entire commercial network, including individual plans on the Affordable Care Act marketplace. On January 14, 2022, the company reported that it had processed 1.64 million claims in connection with its commitment to the committee--more than 99.8 percent of the affected total--at an average cost of $14.55 per claim for a total of $23.9 million. The company expects the remaining claims, which number less than 2,900, to be processed by February 1, 2022. UnitedHealth also committed to more quickly update reimbursement rates for future emergent vaccines and therapeutics, whether for COVID- 19 or the next pandemic. The company added that it is ``redirecting additional internal resources and automating updates whenever possible,'' while noting that their new processes still might involve withholding claims ``for a short time,'' which it characterized as no longer than 30 days. On January 14, the company went further, stating that it will implement new billing codes in a national public health emergency ``faster than industry standard,'' while noting that it has ``learned over the past few months the required technology and human resources that need to be brought forward to accelerate'' adoption of new billing codes in a public health emergency. While lacking some details, the steps UnitedHealth has described appear to be an appropriate response. However, UnitedHealth has not adequately addressed an issue that a senior company official raised when speaking with Aging Committee investigators in September, that the company's size and numerous claims systems presented a barrier to quickly updating COVID-19 vaccine reimbursement rates in the first place. In its responses to subsequent questions about the issue from committee staff, UnitedHealth has cited reasons such as contracting language for the delay, but has failed to provide additional information or explanation in their written responses. The fact that a senior UnitedHealth official told the committee that the company's size negatively affected the quality and efficiency of its interactions with the market is concerning and a matter that deserves continued oversight from Congress and regulators. In recent weeks, the world has been upended by the Omicron variant. Case rates have skyrocketed, and hospitals are once again filling up, primarily with people who have not gotten a COVID-19 vaccine or booster. In order to leave the tragedy, the disruptions and the closures of the pandemic behind, every person who can be vaccinated has a duty to the country to roll up their sleeves and get the shot. We will continue to learn more about the Omicron variant and variants to come. However, there is one thing about this variant, past variants, and future variants that will not change: The key to ending this pandemic is getting more people vaccinated. I remain committed to removing future roadblocks that may emerge to widespread vaccination against COVID-19. This body should do the same. In closing, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the following documents: a September 3, 2021 Modern Healthcare article detailing UnitedHealth's under reimbursement for COVID-19 vaccines compared to most other major carriers; my October 20, 2021 letter to UnitedHealth; UnitedHealth's November 5, 2021 response to my letter; a November 12, 2021 supplement to the company's original response; and a January 14, 2022 email from UnitedHealth providing further updates.

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 rise tonight to speak about the voting legislation that we are debating on the floor. Like so many of my Democratic colleagues, I rise along with those Democratic colleagues in calling for comprehensive Federal legislation to turn back the avalanche of voter suppression legislation in various States, all of it--all of it--animated by the Big Lie about the 2020 election. We will talk more about that in a moment. It is clear to me that Republican politicians across the Nation in State capitals and even here in Washington are attempting to make it harder for tens of millions of Americans to register to vote, to cast their vote, and they are even making it harder, of course, for every vote to count. This is a subversive threat. It is a subversive threat to our democratic institutions. I believe it is a clear and present danger to our elections and also a clear and present danger to our stability as a nation, and, of course, it is a clear and present danger and a direct threat to our democracy itself. Just by way of a significant example, consider what happened in just one State in the last couple of years, in Pennsylvania. I will start with a historical backdrop. Pennsylvania, like a lot of States, had a high-water mark of voting in 1960 in the election between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon, and then in 1964, the numbers were very high as well. So in 1960, about right at--almost exactly 70 percent of the voting-age population voted, but after 1960 and 1964, you had a precipitous drop that occurred every 4 years. Some years, it would go up a little higher; other years, it would go back down. But we never got, in 60 years, to that level again. For example, just the most recent two elections before 2020 in Pennsylvania--in the 2012 election, 5.74 million people voted. That was 57 percent of the voting-age population, so down from that high-water mark of 70 percent in 1960. Twenty-sixteen was a big turnout in our State. The year 2016 was a big turnout in our State. We had more voters than 2012. It was 6.1 million voters, and it went from 57 in 2012 to 61, so it got over that 60 mark, but, of course, 61 is not 70--so we got nowhere near, even in 2016, when you look at the percent of the voting age population. That is the backdrop of 2016: big turnout but not the turnout level we saw in 1960 or 1964 or a few other years. Then, in October of 2019--this is just an example of why the voting measures we are debating here are important in a positive way for helping people to vote. In October 2019, Governor Tom Wolf, in Pennsylvania, signed Act 77. This was a historic and comprehensive election reform bill that sailed through the general assembly with strong bipartisan support. Consider this: 133 Republicans voted for this bill, when you add up the number who voted in the State senate for this bill who were Republicans and then you add them to the number in the State house who were Republicans who voted for the bill. When you look at it across the whole general assembly--both parties, both houses--about 70 percent of the general assembly voted for it. So there is a lot of give-and-take and a lot of compromise, and they voted on a strong election reform bill. Remember, that was October of 2019, well before the onset of the pandemic. But thank goodness we had that bill in place during the pandemic. In addition to enhancing election security, the Pennsylvania law, so-called Act 77, established ``no excuse'' absentee voting, better known today as mail-in voting. That applied to all voters. Finally, we had a mechanism that people could vote by mail, especially in a pandemic. But, of course, when they voted on the bill in 2019, no one could have predicted how useful this legislation would be just a year later. This law was passed before COVID, but, of course, it was in the face of a once-in-a-century pandemic during the runup to the 2020 election, but it proved to be, of course, particularly important. Now we get to 2020. We have had--over many, many years, many, many Presidential elections--nowhere near the percent of the voting-age population voting in the Presidential election compared to 1960 and 1964. What happened in 2020? In the middle of a pandemic, when everyone was predicting, not just in my home State of Pennsylvania but other places as well, that turnout is going to be low because people are worried. They are worried about--and this is, of course, before vaccines. They are worried about contracting the virus. So they won't vote; the turnout is going to be low; and we will see what happens. Well, it didn't happen that way. In Pennsylvania, in 2020, 6.9 million people voted--6.9 million people. That is an increase of roughly 800,000 votes from just 4 years earlier, and that was a pretty good turnout, a really good turnout in 2016. That 6.9 million votes amounted to 71 percent of the voting-age population of Pennsylvania, which was a point higher than 1960. No one--no one--thought that was possible. The only way it was possible was because we had better voting procedures in place. In other words, if you look at it not just from 2016 to 2020 but even from the most recent election before 2016--2012, the 2012 election--the 2020 election from the 2012 was a 20-percent increase in voter turnout. So there can't be any dispute that Pennsylvania's record-setting 71- percent turnout was made possible only through expanding opportunities to vote for all voters--all voters young and old and so many others in between. Mail-in voting enabled almost 3 million Pennsylvanians to safely and securely cast their ballot. By any measure, Pennsylvania should be celebrated as a success story of why these voting provisions help people vote. I hope that we never fall below that 71 percent of the voting-age population. That ought to be the standard for voting in a pandemic or not. In fact, that number should go higher when we are outside of the pandemic because people have different ways to vote. A Republican-controlled legislature and a Democratic Governor came together and enacted strongly supported bipartisan election reform legislation to increase election security and ballot access. Unfortunately, we know that the story doesn't end there. We all know what happened in the next chapter, and it is not unique to Pennsylvania. In response to the 2020 election, we have seen a new chapter, one focused on election subversion and voter suppression written in statehouses across the country. Again, it is attributable to the Big Lie about the 2020 election. I want to note for the record that when we voted here on January 6, the evening of January 6, 2020--after the violent insurrection in the Capitol where we had people marching through this building, calling for the death of the Vice President, trying to locate Members of Congress to bring them harm, and also the whole effort was directed at stopping the counting of the electoral votes--but I want to note for the record that a number of Republican Senators, in fact, most Republican Senators, stood up on January 6 that evening to vote to certify the election. Unfortunately, since January 6 of 2020, despite having voted the right way for democracy that night, a lot of these Republican Senators since then have only validated the Big Lie. They may have voted the right way that night for our democracy, but since that time, they haven't disputed the Big Lie enough--some of them, not all of them, but some of them. And, of course, now they have at least turned a blind eye to efforts at the State level that I just spoke of. I think it is also important for the record to note--I won't read all of this--but to note what the Associated Press found about the election of 2020. Here is a copy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this Associated Press story titled: ``Far too little vote fraud to tip election to Trump, AP finds,'' dated December 14, 2021, by Christina A. Cassidy.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I will just read the first paragraph of this Associated Press story dated December of this past year: An Associated Press review of every potential case of voter fraud in the six battleground states disputed by former President Donald Trump has found fewer than 475--a number that would have made no difference in the 2020 Presidential election. And, of course, Pennsylvania was one of those States that they looked at. We know what happened in the election, and we know why we can say with certainty that the Big Lie is nothing but a lie. After the election of 2020, in June of 2021, Pennsylvania's Republican-controlled legislature became one of the many legislatures across the Nation passing a voter suppression law. Here is what they would have done if they were successful. If they would have passed it, this bill would have imposed unconstitutional voter ID restrictions, restricted mail-in voting--the mail-in voting they just voted in favor of in 2019, the same legislators--and this bill would essentially have eliminated the use of drop boxes. Furthermore, it rolled back several successful provisions of the bipartisan Act 77, including reducing the number of days permitted to register to vote, and eliminating an option to opt in to receive an annual mail-in ballot. While this bill was, fortunately, vetoed by Governor Wolf, the threat to suppress the vote in Pennsylvania remains ever present as the legislature continues to work on another omnibus election bill. Once again, the Big Lie animates the work of Republican politicians in Pennsylvania and throughout the country. It is not simply a lie; it is a lie that engenders fear. Sometimes fear of losing your election in a primary--we understand that fear. We have seen it play out here as well. But sometimes the fear is deeper than that; that your own security will be at risk if you don't espouse the Big Lie. In light of these efforts, it is fair to question, How did Pennsylvania go from a shining example of bipartisan election reform in 2019 to ground zero in the fight against voter suppression and election misinformation in 2021 and continuing into 2022? In the months leading up to the 2020 general election, the former President led an assault on our election system, sowing seeds of division, and, without evidence, questioning the legitimacy of voting methods, including mail-in voting, which has been utilized in the Nation for decades. By the way, mail-in voting allowed us to set a turnout record, as I said before, in Pennsylvania, for the first time in 60 years to go that high--of the voting-age population. The former President lost his election to President Joe Biden, but instead of honorably conceding the race, he created the Big Lie that the election had been stolen from him by raising unfounded allegations of voter fraud, election irregularities in Pennsylvania and across the Nation. Of course, there is simply no evidence to justify these claims of widespread voter fraud or irregularities, as suggested in the AP story and in their investigation that undergirds their conclusions that support that. The Big Lie is the fraud. If you want to talk about fraud, that is where it is. That is the fraud. The Big Lie is the falsehood and the con job. It is a deliberate, ongoing attempt to sow instability. We know that over 60 cases in court after court--from State courts to district courts, to circuit courts, to the U.S. Supreme Court--all those courts refused to indulge the unprecedented, loopy, legal arguments and false conspiracy theories that were put forward by the President's campaign and some Republicans after the election. Despite the lack of any evidence to support claims of widespread fraud, we continue to hear these baseless conspiracy theories in calls to roll back Pennsylvania's Act 77 for one reason and one reason only: to disenfranchise voters. So in order to please one man, rather than support positive reforms that worked in Pennsylvania, that increased turnout in Pennsylvania exponentially like no other law has, lawmakers have introduced, all over the country now, some 400 voter suppression bills. There are three types of corrupt proposals that I would like to summarize. No. 1, shifting election authority; that is one measure of a corrupt practice. No. 2, attacking election workers; that is corrupt, and that is what they are trying to do. And No. 3, restricting mail-in voting. First and foremost, many of the bills attack the most fundamental foundational element of our democracy: administering our elections. According to a report from Voting Rights Lab, in September of 2021, more than 180 of the bills introduced across the country are an effort to subvert our current election administration. Some of these bills would allow the legislature or other partisan actors--really, purveyors of the Big Lie--to exert greater control over elections and interfere with local election administrators. For example, Georgia's SB 202, which has already been enacted into law--not just proposed--this law will allow a partisan State election board to remove and replace local election administrators. The new law empowers the State legislature--the State legislature--to appoint the chair of the election board, ensuring that the majority of the board reflects the partisan will of the legislature. We have also seen numerous lawmakers, including in Pennsylvania, initiate or attempt to initiate partisan election ``audits'' into the 2020 election results without any evidence of fraud. The better word for this type of approach is ``fraudit.'' That is what it is. It is a fraudulent attempt, and it is nothing more than a ``fraudit.'' These efforts fueled by the Big Lie have wasted millions of taxpayer dollars, money solely in an attempt to further call into doubt the 2020 election and create instability in our elections. Republican effort to shift election authority undermines people's faith in elections, and it injects partisanship into our election administration. The second area of corruption we have also seen in some of these bills is efforts to pass legislation that create or increase civil and criminal penalties against election workers. Election officials across the Nation--Republicans and Democrats alike, from blue counties and red counties--should be accorded the respect and commendation they deserve. These are public servants. They should not be subjected to threats, either legal or otherwise. In the middle of the pandemic, these same Americans risked their own health and their families' health to ensure that the elections were conducted safely and efficiently. These Americans--Republicans and Democrats and Independents--did their job honorably. Rather than receiving appreciation for their efforts, they and their families have been threatened with threats of violence, fueled by the deliberate falsehoods of which I spoke before. The same falsehoods spread by politicians here in Washington and in State legislatures across the country. These threats were particularly relevant in my home State of Pennsylvania when then-Philadelphia Commissioner, Al Schmidt, a Republican, his family, and his colleagues were subjected to death threats--death threats--for doing their job. This is a Republican elected official in Philadelphia subjected to death threats after election day, simply because he was trying to fulfill--and the others who worked with him were trying to fulfill--an essential part of their basic duty, which is counting the votes in that city. So despite the widely reported threats against our election officials and concerns about mass resignations due to the stresses on our democratic institutions, Republican legislatures have enacted laws that further threaten these officials with felony prosecutions, and they also threaten civil penalties for not complying with the election rules, even inadvertent or technical mistakes. We have never seen this before in America, but that is what we are talking about today. So these attacks are a clear attempt to further undermine our democracy and counter the efforts of many election officials to help make voting safer and easier during the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, the third issue, which I would consider a corrupt practice that is embedded into these bills, is the question of mail-in voting. As I have already shared, Pennsylvania's record turnout in 2020 was a direct result of the bipartisan efforts, 133 Republican legislators voting for mail-in balloting, so that we would have universal mail-in voting, and early voting in addition to mail-in voting. Rather than embracing its success, Republican lawmakers in Pennsylvania and across the country have worked to greatly restrict or eliminate--or eliminate--mail-in voting through a variety of methods. Seven States have reduced the timeframe in which voters can request mail-in ballots. Another four States limited the use of ballot drop boxes. Some States have gutted or tried to gut the ability of voters to automatically register to receive a mail-in ballot for every election they are eligible to vote in. Republican politicians just keep on lying about the 2020 election. Not a single Republican politician has come forward with evidence of the type of widespread systemic voter fraud that would necessitate any of the changes that these laws are predicated on and these proposals are predicated on. In reality, these changes are about one thing and one thing only-- making it more difficult to cast a ballot. Every single American should be alarmed by these efforts. If we allow voter suppression efforts to go unchecked, they will, eventually and simply, impact everyone. I think it was Martin Luther King who talked about injustice--an injustice that would be validated by these corrupt proposals. ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' Voter suppression efforts would make it harder. Here are just a couple of examples from my home State, and this is true of a lot of States. Voter suppression laws make it harder for a 90-year-old living in rural Pennsylvania who can't get to her county election bureau to vote or to a polling place. She will have a harder time voting in Pennsylvania and in every other State, if Pennsylvania goes in the direction of some of these other States. Pennsylvania has over 800,000 veterans who fought for our freedoms, including the right to vote, the freedom to vote. Shouldn't that veteran continue to have the option to vote early or to vote by mail? After they have served our Nation, shouldn't they continue to have that option? Or should we just go back to the old ways where that veteran is limited to one day a year, for a certain number of hours a year, to vote in a general election? So these proposals--these voter suppression and subversion proposals--will impact everyone. It will impact a farmer in Pennsylvania who might have a very busy day on election day and can't get to vote for one reason or another. So, if they are not able to vote, their vote gets cancelled out because we decided not to have early voting, which we have now; we decided not to have mail-in ballots, which we have now? All in the service of one man and one Big Lie, that is what this is all about. So we can't go back to those days. How about just another example from Pennsylvania? We have had a long tradition where men and women serving overseas have voted by absentee ballot. Guess what an absentee ballot is? An absentee ballot is a mail- in ballot. It is the same thing. We just broadened the category of folks who could use that same method. So do we want to go back to a time when we can't have the kind of mail-in ballots that we had in 2020 that led to that great turnout? And it is entirely possible that we could go back to a time when even the votes of men and women serving overseas would be put at risk, because when you eliminate mail-in ballots in a State like Pennsylvania, you are eliminating absentee ballots, as well, by doing that. So I don't think we want to do that to our fighting men and women. So we can't go back to the days when farmers and small business owners and veterans and busy moms juggling their kids' schedules and seniors who may have trouble voting and need another option to vote--we can't go back to those days when they couldn't vote if they didn't have the time on that one single day. It is one of the reasons why we had such low voter turnout, even in Presidential elections, for all these years in Pennsylvania and in so many other States. So we know what we have to do. We have to go back to our founding principles. And voting is a foundational pillar of our democracy. And, as elected officials, it is our responsibility to do all we can to expand voter access and remove institutional barriers to voting. But we have got to be clearer about what is happening. Our democracy, by virtue of these suppression bills, is under siege right now. The attack here on January 6 continues. What was a violent attack on that day is now in the form of legislation to attack our elections, to attack the right to vote, to make it harder to vote. So attacking democracy at an earlier stage was always met by the right response. Today, that right response--the correct response--is to pass the Freedom to Vote and the John Lewis Act to prevent these kinds of attacks on voting rights. It would protect election officials by criminalizing intimidation, threats, or coercion of election officials. It would mandate systematic, nonpartisan, risk-limiting audits to combat against the unfounded partisan approaches by Republicans. It would create national standards for early voting, mail voting, voting restoration, voter identification, and voter registration. It would also include some of the provisions of my bill--the Accessible Voting Act--to create an accessible voting experience for every voter, ensuring that the needs of people with disabilities are met. That is another category of Americans whose votes will be suppressed--people with disabilities--if these Republicans get their way. This bill we are trying to pass reflects feedback from State and local officials to ensure that people responsible for implementing these reforms can do so effectively. And, furthermore, it would restore the full strength of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 after the Supreme Court gutted several of the Voting Rights Act provisions in recent years. These provisions work hand in hand to improve access to the ballot and protect against election subversion. We should restore the Senate at the same time, by allowing plenty of time for debate, as well as a robust amendment process, so the minority party in the Senate has full opportunity to debate issues like voting rights. So we have got to do more than just simply move a bill forward tomorrow on voting rights. We should also change the Senate rules appropriately to allow that bill to be passed by a majority after we have a robust debate. Debating voting rights has never been more important. The time to do that is now. I yield the floor.