Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak about the bill that we voted on earlier today and the debate that has ensued prior to that vote and I am sure afterwards. This is a moral moment for the country. I believe most would agree with that. The question is, How will our Nation respond at this moral moment? The brutal murder of George Floyd by a police officer ``shames us before the world.'' I am quoting an NAACP official who said it for all of us. His murder did shame us before the world, so did the murder of Rayshard Brooks and Breonna Taylor, and we can go on from there, with so many names that we haven't heard before, and many that we will hear over and over. A lot of us feel that shame. Countless millions of Americans feel that shame. They feel that sadness and they feel that anger all these weeks since that terrible moment that we all witnessed, and so many other moments before and after that. As they feel that shame and express anger and frustration, and as they protest and proclaim, as they march and mobilize, as they use their voice and cast their votes, they demand change, but not simply change in and of itself, a certain kind of change--the kind of change we see rarely in Washington these days and, frankly, rarely over the course of American history, but I think we might be in one of those moments now. They demand transformative change. They demand, and appropriately so, systemic change to a criminal justice system that is infused with racism. Their righteous demand for change is, in fact, a petition for justice. In the 1950s and 1960s, Martin Luther King said it well, among many things he said well, about where we were then and, unfortunately, where we are now. His words still ring true. He said: ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' It is still true today in the context of this debate. But you can go back even further than what Dr. King said. You can go back hundreds of years. St. Augustine said it well, about justice. He said: ``Without justice, what are kingdoms but great bands of robbers?'' Kingdoms as bands of robbers. There has been a lot of robbery over many, many years--even generations--when it comes to Black Americans. For hundreds of years, Black Americans have been robbed of the equal protection of the law. The U.S. Supreme Court has emblazoned on the front portico of that building, just yards from here, ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' So many Black Americans have been robbed of equal justice under law. They have been robbed of opportunity--the opportunity to advance in a country that would not hold the color of their skin against them. They have been robbed of that. They have been robbed of their dignity over and over, in grave ways and in other ways that people never saw--all the indignities, all the insults, and all the mistreatment. Not to mention, worse than that, Black Americans have been robbed of the chance to truly pursue the American dream. They have been robbed of peace of mind, something that those of us who are White should think about a lot more. I should think about more, as a White male, of the peace of mind that a parent has. A father or a mother should have the peace of mind in America when their son or daughter--but often it is their son--leaves the house in the morning: Will he be mistreated walking through a neighborhood by an official of our government law enforcement or otherwise? Will he be pulled over and have his rights violated because of the color of his skin? Black Americans have been robbed of that peace of mind, in addition to so many other kinds of robbery that have impacted their lives. So what do we do? Do we simply march and protest and express outrage? All of that is important. All of that is vital. In fact, all of that is one of the reasons we are even here talking about it on the Senate floor--people in both parties talking about it. In my home State of Pennsylvania, there are very few counties--just a handful of counties-- that have not had one or two or many more protests in a State with 67 counties. Part of what we have to do as legislators, as Members of this legislative body called the U.S. Senate, is to, in fact, legislate. Let me start with the bill that was introduced about 2 weeks ago, the Justice in Policing Act, S. 3912. If I had to describe the bill in one word, it would be accountability. I think there is a big difference between that bill, the Justice in Policing Act, and the bill offered by the majority. Accountability is vital. It is essential. We cannot move forward and say that we have done something substantial to bring about justice and to advance the cause of justice unless there is accountability. The bill also has very strong transparency provisions, as well as a long menu of actions we can take to improve police practices in a meaningful way. Let me start with accountability. When we talk about accountability, we are talking about constitutional violations--preventing those violations and holding those accountable that engage in constitutional violations. We could, for example, revise 18 U.S. Code, section 242. It is, right now, as a matter of law, a violation of law for any law enforcement officer to willfully deprive a person of any right protected by the Constitution. But it is almost impossible for prosecutors to prove willfulness, and the Department of Justice doesn't prosecute very many cases in a Nation of 18,000 law enforcement agencies. This bill would revise the intent standard, known by the Latin ``mens rea''--the intent standard--to knowingly or with reckless disregard. So the change of that standard under law would make it more likely that successful prosecutions can be brought when constitutional rights are violated in a criminal manner. The second constitutional violation provision speaks to civil liability. Reforming our civil liability laws are often referred to by a particular doctrine, qualified immunity. In cases where a citizen is a victim of police misconduct, this is a constitutional violation when it happens. Currently, a police officer who violates an American's constitutional rights is often protected by a liability shield we know as qualified immunity. This doctrine has been questioned by many. There are at least two Supreme Court Justices, who don't usually agree on much, that questioned it. Members of the U.S. Senate in both parties here have questioned this doctrine. Basically, the doctrine holds that police cannot be liable unless the conduct violates ``clearly established'' standards or a standard set forth in prior cases, and most courts dismiss such cases. The bill would reform that doctrine of qualified immunity to ensure that Americans can recover damages in a case where their constitutional rights are violated by the actions of law enforcement. There are two provisions that speak to accountability. There is a third, as well, and I will not go through all of them. Accountability also means strengthening pattern-or-practice investigations by granting subpoena power to the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, and also providing grants and funding to State attorneys general to conduct these pattern-or-practice investigations at the State level. The focus here, again, is on constitutional violations that are systemic in a local jurisdiction or systemic in a State agency. What results from these kinds of investigations often are consent decrees. These consent decrees by courts are, of course, supposed to be judicially enforced. These decrees can often ensure that a police department implements reforms. Here is one of the problems. The Trump administration has virtually abandoned this practice of bringing these pattern-or-practice investigations. The Obama administration opened 25 such cases. But even under the Obama administration, there was a constraint because of the lack of subpoena power. That should be changed. I will just mention two more provisions. It is a long list, but I will just mention two more. The Justice in Policing Act bans choke holds and bans carotid holds. And No. 5, it bans no-knock warrants in Federal drug cases. Now, what about the bill offered by the Republicans, the majority here in the Senate? The Republican bill does not, in my judgment, respond to this moral moment. It does not substantially advance the cause of justice because it is devoid of provisions that would impose accountability--real accountability--on law enforcement, and especially on a particular law enforcement officer who is sworn to protect Americans. He is not sworn to violate their constitutional rights. So when a law enforcement officer engages in that conduct, there must be accountability. The bill does not speak to that in a fashion that I think would bring about change. The bill also doesn't even explicitly ban choke holds and carotid holds, meaning a choke hold that cuts off your air flow, which we know can kill someone, and also the carotid hold, which cuts off your blood flow. We know that both can be dangerous. Both can be, in fact, lethal. The bill doesn't ban them. That is the only reason, potentially, we are even here debating this, because the American people--God only knows, tens of millions--watched a police officer choke the life out of a human being, George Floyd. Without that video, I am not sure we would be here debating this bill or any bill. But the idea that this practice is not banned under this bill makes the bill woefully deficient, and I think that is an understatement. The bill fails to ban no-knock warrants, even in the context-- frankly, a limited context--of Federal drug cases. It doesn't do that. That kind of a ban might have saved the life of Breonna Taylor, for example. The Republican bill doesn't prohibit racial profiling, and it provides no change--no substantial change--in the militarization of police forces. In the end, we are here not just to debate and to focus on bills and policy in language, but we are here to talk about justice. There is a great hymn I heard in church over many years. It is rooted in the Scriptures. One of the refrains or one of the parts of the refrain of that hymn is this: ``We are called to act with justice.'' Those are the exact words of that hymn. The first couple of lines of the hymn are: ``Come! Live in the light!'' And then it goes on to say: ``We are called to act with justice.'' If we are going to act with justice here by way of legislation, we should listen not just to the Scriptures or to Dr. King or to St. Augustine. We should also listen to a more recent Dr. King. He just happens to be the former Education Secretary, Dr. John B. King. He just testified a couple of weeks ago in our Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, the committee that Senator Alexander was talking about. Former Secretary of Education King said the following regarding students returning to school this year, and I think it bears directly not just on these justice issues but also on the broader agenda that we should push forward to advance the interests of Black Americans and communities of color. Dr. King, in this testimony just recently, said the following. When our students return to school buildings, they will need additional supports as they grapple with the continued reality of racism in America and the legacy of over 400 years of anti-Blackness. The murders of George Floyd-- And then he lists some others-- [Those murders] have once again sent the message to Black students that their lives are devalued. He goes on in his testimony to talk about the moment we are in--the moment I have called the moral moment, as have others. Dr. John King said: [We face a moment where] our nation's students of color and their families also find themselves enduring a pandemic that disproportionately impacts their health and safety, mired in an economic crisis that disproportionately affects their financial well-being, and living in a country that too often still struggles to recognize their humanity. As Dr. Martin Luther King and Dr. John King, the former Secretary of Education, and others have told us, we have to make sure this is a moment we can act with justice, as the hymn tells us. All of us, no matter where we are from and no matter what party we are in--all of us--are called to act with justice. So let us not fail to act with justice in this moral moment. Let us embrace this moment. Pass the Justice in Policing Act or something very close to that, and bring the warm light of justice to millions of Americans, especially Black Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the distinguished life and career of Aliquippa Chief of Police Robert William Sealock, who passed away on April 11, 2020. Chief Sealock dedicated his life in service to his community, his Commonwealth, and his country. A veteran of the U.S. Navy, he later served as a police officer in the Borough of Bridgewater and Crescent and Center Townships, located in Allegheny and Beaver counties in western Pennsylvania. At the time of his passing, he was the chief of police for the city of Aliquippa. Beginning as a patrolman and working his way up through the ranks of the Aliquippa Police Force over a period of 23 years, he assumed the role of chief of police in 2018. Chief Sealock was a graduate of Moon Area High School and became a member of the Fraternal Order of Police James Naim Memorial Lodge No. 26 as well as a member of the Masonic Lodge No. 672. Chief Sealock's leadership has been widely praised by both the public and his peers in the law enforcement community. At a time when his community faced a surge in crime and an understaffed police force, Chief Sealock stepped up to meet the challenge. In just a few short years, Chief Sealock enhanced the reputation of the police department by working tirelessly to rebuild trust and bridge the gap between local law enforcement and the community it served. He also instituted several programs across multiple city offices that were designed to reach Aliquippa's youth and increase participation in group activities. Chief Sealock led by example. He recognized and understood how important it was to police officers to have the support of their chief and his hands-on approach inspired confidence. As a result, his fellow officers had tremendous respect for his leadership and endearingly referred to him as a ``cop's cop.'' Tragically, Chief Sealock suffered a medical emergency while on duty which led to his passing. His dedication to the Aliquippa Police Department, his beloved community, his family, and country were guided by a sincere commitment to public service and improving the lives of people he encountered. He will be remembered for his compassion, loving spirit, and warm personality, and his legacy will be felt for many years to come. I extend my thoughts and prayers to his devoted wife, Donna; his daughter and son-in-law Taylor Sealock-Smith and husband Taner; two stepchildren Jonathan Peterson and Stephanie Snyder, Leslie Patterson and husband Derek Trohaugh; his parents Patricia and James Blaha; his sister Colleen Sealock; his father and mother-in-law William and Dorothy Fontana; and all of Chief Sealock's family and friends as they mourn his loss.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Kimberly ``Kim'' Bierly, who will retire this month after 13 years of service to the U.S. Senate. For as long as I have been in the Senate, Kim has served as my regional manager for the North Central Region of Pennsylvania. Born and raised in Lock Haven, Kim gained a wealth of professional experience prior to her Senate service. A student of journalism, Kim graduated from Rider College before becoming a reporter for the Lock Haven Express. She later served as the national marketing director for Penn State University and worked in private sector marketing, before lending her time and talents to my 2006 Senate campaign. Following our victory that year, Kim began her Senate service when I asked her to join my State staff in 2007. Over the course of these many years, Kim has tirelessly championed the concerns of rural constituents and worked to ensure that their needs were always addressed in my work. She answered thousands of phone calls, attended hundreds of constituent meeting and traveled far and wide across many, many miles to meet people in their own towns. She worked hard to present the views of our State's farming community and conducted me around all my engagements and events throughout the region. It is often said that Kim ``knows everyone in Central Pennsylvania,'' and I can testify that that is true. Kim has a heart of gold, and she has always watched over all of her colleagues as a kind of ``Mother Hen,'' sending along a kind word of encouragement, placing a personal call, and helping everyone who is in need. As a proud cancer survivor, she proudly ministers to other patients and believes in giving back in return for the many kindnesses bestowed on her during her illness. For all of her professional accomplishments, Kim has many hobbies and personal pursuits. She is an accomplished knitter--socks are her favorite--who owned her own small business in Centre County for several years called ``Main Street Yarn.'' She is also an animal lover who spent 10 years leading a volunteer golden retriever rescue organization in her free time that saved over 800 dogs. While she misses her goldens ``Timber'' and ``Teddy'' every day, she loves to show off pictures of her dog, ``Charlie,'' and her cat, ``Caddy.'' They are her family. My most enduring memories of Kim are our annual attempts to procure donuts and milkshakes at the Pennsylvania Farm Show and snacking on the wonderful chocolate chip cookies she would bake for the whole team during our staff retreats. Her departure leaves big shoes to fill, but I wish her well as she and her husband, Keith, move on to this next adventure in their lives. Congratulations, Kim, for a job well done. I am grateful for your service to the country and the Commonwealth, and I wish you the best of luck in your retirement. We will miss you.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to remember and honor Judge James M. Munley and Judge A. Richard Caputo, who collectively served the Middle District of Pennsylvania as Federal district judges for over 40 years. Judge Munley was a native of Archibald, PA. After graduating from the University of Scranton in 1958, he joined the U.S. Army and served until 1960. After his military service, Judge Munley enrolled at the Temple University School of Law and graduated in 1963. He clerked for the Honorable Michael J. Eagen on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania before practicing law in Scranton from 1964 to 1978. From 1978 to 1998, Judge Munley served with distinction as a judge on the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas. In 1998, Judge Munley was nominated to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania by President Bill Clinton. He was confirmed by the Senate and went on to serve the Middle District honorably for over two decades. As a Federal judge, Judge Munley continued his family's tremendous legacy of public service and dedication to Pennsylvania. Both of his parents, Robert W. Munley and Marion L. Munley, and his grandfather, William J. Munley, served in the Pennsylvania General Assembly. Judge Munley has been remembered by members of the Pennsylvania legal community as a skilled, good-natured, and fair jurist who approached life with a sense of optimism that ``was contagious in the best sense of the word.'' In his courtroom and in his life, he was known to treat everyone with the same dignity, respect, and kindness. U.S. District Judge Malachy E. Mannion remembered Judge Munley by noting: ``What defined him most was just his sense of humanity. He was a great judge, but he was a greater human being.'' Judge Caputo was born in Port Chester, NY, and raised in Rye, NY. He graduated from Brown University in 1960. After Brown, Judge Caputo enrolled in the University of Pennsylvania Law School and graduated in 1963. He went on to join the U.S. Air Force as an officer in the Judge Advocate General's Corps and served until 1967. After his military service, Judge Caputo worked as a public defender in Luzerne County for 1 year before joining the law firm of Shea & Shea. In 1973, the firm was renamed Shea, Shea & Caputo, and after nearly 30 years in private practice, Judge Caputo was nominated to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania by President Bill Clinton in 1997. After being confirmed by the Senate, he honorably served on the Federal bench in the Middle District for over two decades. Judge Caputo was known as a strong and fair jurist who treated everyone with deep respect in his courtroom. He strongly believed in balancing individual rights with the needs of a well-ordered society, and some in the Pennsylvania legal community have remembered him as a judge who was not afraid to depart from Federal sentencing guidelines when he found them to be too harsh. He was deeply committed to the judiciary, as evidenced by the fact that he continued to hear cases up until just a few months prior to his death. He believed that the judiciary was the heart of our democracy. Chief U.S. District Judge Christopher Conner remembered Judge Caputo as a `` `judge's judge'--a strong, direct and erudite jurist,'' who made ``extraordinary contributions to the Wilkes-Barre vicinage, to our entire court, and to our country.'' At a time when our Nation faces unprecedented challenges in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, Judge Munley and Judge Caputo are important reminders of the intellect, compassion, and fairness that have guided our Nation since its founding. They will be missed tremendously, but their legacy will continue to inspire countless Pennsylvanians and individuals throughout our country.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Ms. Eleanor Elkin, who passed away at the age of 103 on December 4, 2019. Eleanor served as one of Pennsylvania's most distinguished disability advocates. It is important that we remember a remarkable life dedicated to the betterment of others. Eleanor transformed the love for her family into a life of advocacy whose impact will be felt for decades to come. Eleanor's commitment to equality was evident long before her time as one of Pennsylvanian's most prominent disability rights leaders. Born in 1916 in Philadelphia, she graduated from Germantown High School in 1934 and married Philip Elkin in 1939. They raised two adopted children, Margo and Richard. Richard was born with a disability, and Eleanor came face to face with the discriminatory laws experienced by those with disabilities. The State of Pennsylvania did not realize, however, that it was about to confront a true fighter. Jim Wilson, former president of the Arc of the United States, said it best when he described Eleanor as ``a white glove, tenacious fighter who would not accept `no' for an answer.'' That fighting spirit served Eleanor well when the State put up roadblocks to adopting Richard simply because he had a disability. When Richard was 2 years old, he was forcibly placed in a State-run institution. Eleanor went to court to get Richard back home. From that point on, she fought for his rights, beginning with a fight for him to attend preschool. At a time when it was common to deny children with disabilities access to education, Eleanor persuaded his elementary school to create a classroom for him and other children with disabilities. The numerous obstacles faced by Richard convinced Eleanor to expand her advocacy beyond her family. She was among a group of parents who joined together and created The Arc of Philadelphia in 1948. She founded a mothers' support group in Bucks County, which became The Arc of Bucks County in the 1950's. She was integral to the development of The Arc of Pennsylvania, and became the organization's president in the 1960's. She went on to become president of The Arc of the United States in 1967 and 1968. At a time when the norm was to force children with disabilities into institutions, Eleanor was a leader in the fight to bring people with disabilities into the community. She partnered with the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia to expand the rights of people with disabilities. She helped to win a significant victory in 1971 with the ruling in PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which overturned a Pennsylvania law that permitted schools to deny public education to children with disabilities. This battle established the principles that eventually led to the Education for All Handicapped Children Act in 1975, which is now referred to as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Eleanor also joined forces with the Public Interest Law Center in one of the most consequential fights of her life, the closure of the Pennhurst State School and Hospital. Pennhurst was an institution in Pennsylvania for people with disabilities that was exposed in the 1960's as a center of abuse and neglect and which came to symbolize the shameful belief that people with disabilities should be isolated and hidden from view. Eleanor contributed her advocacy to the landmark 1974 case Halderman v. Pennhurst, which ruled that the constitutional rights of the residents of Pennhurst were being violated. This was a stark break from the common beliefs of the time which afforded people with disabilities little respect and even fewer rights. The case helped fuel the larger movement away from institutions and was an important step in the eventual closure of Pennhurst in 1987. On behalf of the people of Pennsylvania and our grateful Nation, we extend our belated condolences to the family of Eleanor Elkin. Throughout her life, she fought for the dignity and well-being of people with disabilities. Whenever she saw injustice, she also saw an opportunity to make the world a better place. Celia Feinstein, director Emeritus of the Temple Institute on Disabilities, said that Eleanor was once asked how she would like to be remembered, and Eleanor replied simply that, ``I don't know that I need to be remembered as much as I would want to know that what I've been doing [will] continue.'' I have no doubt that thousands are ready to continue her work on behalf of people with disabilities. Pennsylvania and all of America are better places because of Eleanor's commitment and extraordinary efforts. We may have lost Eleanor Elkin, but we will never lose the positive change she brought to countless lives and the impact she had on disability policy in our country.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of a more comprehensive version of my statement regarding the impeachment trial of President Donald John Trump be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, today I wish to honor the distinguished life and career of Anthony J. May, who passed away on January 20, 2020. Tony worked for more than 30 years as a political strategist and journalist, leaving his mark on Pennsylvania politics. He used his deep knowledge of Pennsylvania history to assist many in trying to find the best way forward, including during his time as executive director of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party. He served as the communications director and press secretary for my father, Governor Robert P. Casey, as well as press secretary for Governor Milton J, Shapp and as communications director under House Speakers K. Leroy Irvis and James J. Manderino. Most recently, he worked at Triad Strategies, a communications and public relations firm in Harrisburg, as Partner Emeritus. Tony also served the public as a journalist and political analyst for various newspapers in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New Jersey, and as an editor for the Associated Press. In these roles, in addition to being past chair of the Pennsylvania Public Television Network, he worked tirelessly to keep the public informed and to support journalists and journalism wherever and whenever he could. Tony was a legend in Pennsylvania for decades, and his legacy will be felt for years to come. My thoughts and prayers are with his wife, Betsy; his children, Crispin, Amy, and Cybele; his five grandchildren and two great-grandchildren; and all of Tony's family and friends as they mourn his loss.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise today to celebrate Black History Month and to pay tribute to Pennsylvanians whose work has made a real difference in our Commonwealth. This year we will honor three individuals who have dedicated themselves to uplifting the lives of others. We know that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once said: ``Life's most persistent and urgent question is: `What are you doing for others?' '' For purposes of today's remarks, I will substitute one word. I will substitute the word ``children'' for the word ``others'' and ask: What are you doing for our children? It is an important question, not only for those of us who gather for Black History Month today and to celebrate this month, but it is also an important question for every Member of Congress to ask themselves. This year we are going to honor these three Pennsylvanians: Kathy Elliott, Rosemary Browne, and Ellyn Jo Waller. All three have dedicated their lives to answering this urgent question and to building pathways toward hope for children in their communities. I can think of no calling more important and no mission more essential than this one: to help our children. It is an honor for me to have the privilege to recognize these remarkable Pennsylvanians. They are beacons in their communities, and they are each, in their own way, an inspiration to me in my work in the Senate and, I know, to the work of our staff as well. American children face a crisis created by policy choices made by adults over now several decades. Despite low unemployment and overall economic growth, children are being left out and left behind. Almost half of young children in the United States of America live in poverty or near poverty, with infants and toddlers at greatest risk. Nearly half of children live in those circumstances. According to the Census Bureau's ``Supplemental Poverty Measure,'' which takes into account many of the government programs designed to assist low-income families and individuals, childhood poverty worsened--worsened--in 2017 for the first time since the Great Recession. Poverty harms children both immediately and for a lifetime, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine concluded in their 2019 seminal report, ``A Roadmap to Reducing Child Poverty.'' They found that poverty itself, especially when it occurs in early childhood or is persistent over time, is damaging to children in ways that last a lifetime. Specifically, the report finds the following--and I am quoting the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine: ``We find overwhelming evidence . . . that . . . a child growing up in a family whose income is below the poverty line experiences worse outcomes than a child from a wealthier family in virtually every dimension, from physical and mental health, to educational attainment and labor market success, to risky behaviors and delinquency.'' This is a crisis of untapped potential opportunities. It is a crisis, as well, of contributions not made. When a child faces needless obstacles to becoming the person he or she might become, it is a profound tragedy that affects all of us because we are denying not just that child but also that family, that child's family, their community, and our country the contributions that child could make if we were investing in that child. Over time, corrupt forces have perverted the basic notions of freedom while creating a society that works for corporate interests rather than our children's best interests. Freedom, as we know, is not simply the right to be left alone. Real freedom must include the opportunity--the affirmative ability--to achieve one's dreams. A country that claims to support the freedom of its people must provide opportunities to its citizens. For example, in his second inaugural address, President Obama said the following: We do not believe that in this country freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us, at any time, may face a job loss, or a sudden illness, or a home swept away in a terrible storm. The commitments we make to each other . . . these things do not sap our initiative, they strengthen us. They don't make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great. President Obama was right, and he knew then that there were and are today extraordinary people across the country who are working to give our children the opportunity to achieve and grow and contribute so much to our Nation. Today I will speak about three women who are doing this work in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: first, Rosemary Browne of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. For over 35 years, Rosemary Browne has been a leader in South Central Pennsylvania. During that time, she has held a number of critical roles in both the government sector and the nonprofit sector. She is currently the President and CEO of Alder Health Services, the mission of which is to improve the health and well-being of persons living with HIV/AIDS and members of the LGBTQ community in a culturally competent, affirming, and empowering environment. The agency provides behavioral health, primary care, case management, wellness services, HIV/STD testing and treatment, family planning, and a host of other programs. Critically, Alder Health provides a safe haven for LGBTQ youth, and we know that significant progress has been made in advancing the rights of LGBTQ individuals. However, the progress has been uneven, and we are still falling far short, for example, in serving transgender young people, especially transgender young people of color who face disproportionally higher rates of suicide and violence. Alder Health, under Rosemary Browne's leadership, has played an indispensable role in helping us better understand the challenges of LGBTQ adolescents and providing them with the services they need. In 2018 Rosemary was appointed to Governor Tom Wolf's Pennsylvania Commission on LGBTQ Affairs, the first-of-its-kind statewide commission in the Nation. Rosemary's work at Alder builds on her primary work at the Highmark Foundation, where she led efforts to address emerging community health challenges and to make sure that uninsured and underserved populations in South Central Pennsylvania had the attention and the services that they needed. In this capacity, she spearheaded efforts to address bullying in our schools and our communities as a public health problem and also provided leadership on a strategy to reduce childhood obesity through school and community-based partnerships. Prior to her work at Highmark Foundation, Rosemary spent a decade at the Foundation for Enhancing Communities as a program officer and then director of programs and community investment, where she oversaw tens of millions of investment in community services and tuition assistance, giving hundreds of area college-bound students the opportunity to pursue higher education. Over her career, Rosemary Browne has heeded the call of service and lent her considerable passion and expertise in many different capacities. Whatever the role, the work has been the same: putting a spotlight on the needs of the underserved populations--LGBTQ youth, girls of color, and other underserved populations who lack access to healthcare, higher education--and always--always--helping them to obtain the services they need and to remove the obstacles that stand between them and their full potential. Service has always been a part of Rosemary's work, believing, as she does, that we are given resources and influence not for ourselves but for others. Also, like Rosemary Browne, Dr. Kathi Elliott's career has been defined by her service to others and to the children and young people of Pennsylvania. In this case, in Southwestern Pennsylvania. Kathi came to this work naturally, having had those values instilled in her by her late mother, the former police commander of Pittsburgh, Gwen Elliott. We have had South Central Pennsylvania with Rosemary Browne. Now we are in Southwestern Pennsylvania with Dr. Kathi Elliott. Kathi's mom, Gwen, the late police commander, was herself a trailblazer and someone whose story also should be told. We don't have time for two stories in one family today, but I will tell part of Gwen's story as well. Gwen was one of the first African-American women officers in the Pittsburgh Police Department, joining the department in 1976 and eventually rising to the rank of commander. In 2002, Gwen founded Gwen's Girls, an organization dedicated to empowering girls and young women through holistic, gender-specific programs, education, and experiences through after school--school and community-based programming throughout the communities in Southwestern Pennsylvania. Gwen's Girls has grown to provide service throughout the region with sites in Pittsburgh, Wilkinsburg, and Clarendon, PA. Given her mother's leadership, it is no surprise that Dr. Kathi Elliott has demonstrated the same commitment to and passion for leadership, development, and empowerment of girls. Prior to accepting the position of CEO of Gwen's Girls in 2015, Kathi spent years providing leadership in social service, community, and individual mental health treatment. Kathi began her career as a victim advocate at the Center for Victims, working mostly in the juvenile justice space. She also remains a practicing psychiatric nurse practitioner. In that capacity, she provides psychiatric evaluations, medication management, and clinical consultation services and treatment at the VA of Pittsburgh--their outpatient mental health clinic. Dr. Elliott completed dual master's degrees in nursing and social work from the University of Pittsburgh and earned a doctor of nursing practice degree from Chatham University in 2014. Through Dr. Elliott's leadership, Gwen's Girls has become recognized as a frontrunner in the integration of evidence-based, clinical prevention and intervention policies and practices that enhance the child and social welfare system. Gwen's Girls convenes an annual equity summit for Black girls to address the racial and gender biases that exist within the juvenile justice, health and wellness, child welfare, and education systems. Dr. Elliott has also remained a constant leading force and convener of the Black Girls Equity Alliance--a collaboration of over 75 stakeholders committed to addressing systemic inequities in the juvenile justice, child welfare, education, and healthcare systems. Dr. Elliott currently serves on the board of trustees at Chatham University. In December 2017, she was appointed by Mayor Bill Peduto to serve as a commissioner on the newly formed Gender Equity Commission for the City of Pittsburgh. Our third honoree today, Dr. Ellyn Jo Waller, though she was born in Queens, NY, we are proud to call her a daughter of Pennsylvania. Many in Philadelphia know her as a member and a leader at Enon Tabernacle Baptist Church, as well as the partner, in both life and ministry, of Dr. Alyn Waller, senior pastor of Enon Tabernacle Baptist Church. Ellyn Jo Waller earned a bachelor of special education from Ohio University, a master of education in curriculum, instruction, and technology in education, and a doctor of education and curriculum, instruction, and technology in education, with an emphasis on literary education, from Temple University. Dr. Waller has devoted her passion and her time to promoting women's education and empowerment. She has especially devoted much of her time to combating human trafficking, both here in the United States and internationally. She is an active member of the Philadelphia Anti-Human Trafficking Coalition and serves as cochair of the religion subcommittee. In 2011, Dr. Waller founded She's My Sister, an anti-human trafficking ministry at Enon Tabernacle. She's My Sister works to ensure that the faith community in Greater Philadelphia is aware of the issue of human trafficking and also partners with the Greater Philadelphia Salvation Army on the issue of participating in street outreach, supporting and strengthening the drop-in centers, and advocating on behalf of victims of human trafficking and sexual exploitation. In October of 2015, under Dr. Waller's leadership, the ministry hosted its Inaugural Human Trafficking Awareness 5K Walk/Run to raise funds for a transitional residential program for young women exiting the life and aging out of the child welfare system. Internationally, Dr. Waller regularly participates in rescue and restoration efforts in Italy and South Africa. Dr. Waller also serves on a number of boards and provides community leadership in other ways. She is a member of the board of the City School in Philadelphia, on the advisory committee of the United Negro College Funds, Delaware Valley Women of Faith for Education annual luncheon, and is president of the Charitas Foundation, which is the philanthropic Waller family foundation established to positively impact the lives of individuals by sowing financial seeds into organizations that change lives through their missions. Dr. Waller has served on the Foundation Board of the Community College of Philadelphia since 2014 and currently serves as the president of the Foundation Board. Each of our honorees today--these three remarkable women--have worked tirelessly to ensure that our children can flourish and can fulfill their potential. When others may look the other way or even wash their hands of the solemn duty to help our children, our honorees have instead volunteered for service over and over again. To refer back to the first question I started with, ``What are you doing for our children,'' each of us has an obligation to answer that question. Each of our three honorees today have answered that question by devoting their lives to the urgent work of helping our children. These three remarkable women--all Pennsylvanians--have provided pathways to hope. For that, we owe them our deepest gratitude. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, as I rise today to discuss this impeachment trial, I am reminded of an inscription above the front door of the Finance Building in Harrisburg, PA, from the 1930s. Here is the inscription: ``All public service is a trust, given in faith and accepted in honor.'' I believe that President Trump and every public official in America must earn that trust every day. That sacred trust is given to us, as the inscription says, ``in faith,'' by virtue of our election. The question for the President and every public official is this: Will we accept this trust by our honorable conduct? The trust set forth in the inscription is an echo of Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist No. 65, where Hamilton articulated the standard for impeachment as ``offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.'' Over the past 2 weeks, I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward by the President's defense lawyers and the House managers. In light of the substantial record put forth by the managers in this case, I have determined that the managers have not only met but exceeded their burden of proof. President Trump violated his duty as a public servant by corruptly abusing his power to solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election and by repeatedly obstructing Congress's constitutionally based investigation into his conduct. President Trump's clearly established pattern of conduct indicates that he will continue to be ``a threat to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office.'' For these reasons, I will vote guilty on both article I and article II. This impeachment was triggered by the President's conduct. We are here because the President abused his power--the awesome power of his office--to demand that an ally investigate a political opponent, proving his contempt for the Constitution and his duties as a public official. The House managers provided substantial evidence of wrongdoing. First, as to article I regarding abuse of power, many of the facts here are undisputed. For example, there is no dispute that the President has said, when referring to the Constitution itself: ``Article II allows me to do whatever I want.'' This is what the President of the United States of America said. Then he withheld congressionally authorized military assistance to Ukraine in a White House meeting with President Zelensky and conditioned that military assistance and the meeting on Ukraine publicly announcing investigations into Vice President Biden and his son, as well as a debunked conspiracy theory about the 2016 election interference. The memorandum of the July 25 phone call in which President Trump asked President Zelensky ``to do us a favor though,'' after Zelensky brought up in the conversation military assistance, that evidence is compelling evidence of wrongdoing. The President reiterated on the White House lawn on October 3 that Ukraine should ``start a major investigation into the Bidens'' before adding that China should also ``start an investigation into the Bidens.'' President Trump's own politically appointed Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, explicitly testified that the meeting and the assistance were conditioned on announcing--announcing--the investigations. The President's defense lawyers first insisted on this floor that he ``did absolutely nothing wrong.'' But later, after even Republican Senators would not make that claim, the new justification for his misconduct was ``corruption'' and ``burden-sharing.'' If the President were so concerned about corruption in Ukraine, why did he dismiss one of our best corruption-fighting diplomats, Marie Yovanovitch? In May, the Department of Defense also certified-- certified--that Ukraine had taken ``substantial actions'' to decrease corruption. If there were legitimate foreign policy concerns about corruption, the President would not have released aid to Ukraine without delay in 2017 and in 2018, only to delay it in 2019, after Joe Biden announced his run for President. If there were legitimate foreign policy concerns, the President would not have been interested in pursuing investigations based on--as Dr. Fiona Hill testified--a ``fictional narrative that is being perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services'' to raise doubts about Russia's own culpability in the 2016 election interference and to harm the relationship between the United States and Ukraine. Furthermore, the President's defense team would have us believe that he legitimately asserted executive privilege over the House's well- founded impeachment inquiry, despite the fact that he never actually asserted a privilege over a single document or witness. Rather, he issued a blanket directive in which he refused to cooperate entirely with the House investigation. This action not only obstructed the House's constitutional responsibility of oversight, it also sought to cover up the President's corrupt abuse of power. At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, the Framers' understanding of ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' was informed by centuries of English legal precedent. This understanding was reflected in the language of Federalist No. 65 that I referred to earlier regarding ``an abuse or violation of some public trust.'' Based on this history, both Chambers of Congress have consistently interpreted ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' broadly to mean ``serious violations of the public trust.'' The President's defense lawyers argued that impeachment requires the violation of a criminal statute to be constitutionally valid. This argument is offensive, dangerous, and not supported by historical precedent, credible scholarship, or common sense about the sacred notion of the public trust. When applying the impeachment standard of an ``abuse or violation of some public trust,'' it is clear that President Trump's conduct exceeded that standard. Any effort to corrupt our next election must be met with swift accountability, as provided for in the impeachment clause in the Constitution. There is no other remedy to constrain a President who has acted time and again to advance his personal interests over those of the Nation. Furthermore, as demonstrated through Special Counsel Mueller's report regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election and the substantial evidence presented in this impeachment trial and the House proceedings, President Trump has engaged in ongoing efforts to solicit foreign interference in our elections. As the Washington Post reported on September the 21st in a story written by three reporters who have covered the President for several years, the President's conduct on the Ukraine phone call revealed a ``President convinced of his own invincibility--apparently willing and even eager to wield the vast powers of the United States to taint a political foe and confident that no one could hold him back.'' This President will abuse his power again. At the outset of this trial and throughout the proceedings, Senate Democrats and 75 percent of the American people have repeatedly called for relevant witnesses and relevant documents to be subpoenaed to ensure a full and fair trial for all parties. For example, we sought testimony from former National Security Advisor John Bolton, whose unpublished manuscript indicates that the President explicitly told Bolton that he wanted to continue the delay in military assistance to Ukraine until it announced the political investigations he was seeking. Fifty-one Senate Republicans refused to examine this or other relevant evidence, thereby rigging this trial to the benefit of the President. Fair trials have witnesses and documents. Coverups have neither. This is the third Presidential impeachment trial in our country's history, and it is the only one--the only one--to be conducted without calling a single witness. In fact, every completed impeachment trial in history has included new witnesses who were not even interviewed in the House of Representatives. Senate Republicans slammed the door shut on relevant testimony, contrary to the national interest. Our Founders had the foresight to ensure that the power of the President was not unlimited and that Congress could, if necessary, hold the Executive accountable for abuses of power through the impeachment process. This trial is not simply about grave Presidential abuse of power; it is about our democracy, the sanctity of our elections, and the very values that the Founders agreed should guide our Nation. I go back to the beginning and that inscription: ``All public service is a trust, given in faith and accepted in honor.'' President Trump dishonored that public trust and thereby abused his power for personal political gain. In order to prevent continuing interference in our upcoming election and blatant obstruction of Congress, I will vote guilty on both articles. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss U.S. policy regarding Iran. We know that in 2009 the new Obama administration came into office at a time when the Iranian regime was racing to develop a nuclear weapon. The prospect of the Iranian regime with a nuclear weapon would present a substantial threat to America and to our allies. At the same time, Iran was engaged in a host of other malign activities, but the most urgent and significant threat was nuclear. In 2013, Iran was 2 to 3 months from being able to build a nuclear weapon. The Obama administration decided to use hard-nosed diplomacy resulting in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, known by the acronym JCPOA. This agreement was entered into with a number of countries, three of them our allies--the United Kingdom, France and Germany. We also had two partner countries--countries with which we have a lot of tensions and conflict. We were partners with China and Russia. So this agreement stretched from one end of the world to the other. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action prevented Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon by, among other steps, authorizing some of the most intrusive inspections that have ever been put into place. This agreement, the JCPOA, did not cover several other nonnuclear malign activities that the Iranian regime was and is engaged in. The JCPOA isolated and largely solved the most dire threat, that of a nuclear- armed Iran in the near future. This agreement, from its signing in 2015 through 2018, worked. Until recently, Iran was complying with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. That is the considered judgment of the International Atomic Energy Agency, known as IAEA. The considered judgment of the U.S. intelligence community was that Iran was complying with the agreement. It was also the judgment made by the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Department of Defense in both the Obama administration and the Trump administration. The determination that Iran was complying with the agreement is also the assessment of our allies and partners with whom the Obama administration worked to bring into a coalition. Here is a sampling of assessments prior to recent events. In September 2017, then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson stated that Iran is in ``technical compliance'' with the JCPOA. Second, in October 2017, then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis stated that Iran was ``fundamentally'' in compliance with the JCPOA. ``Overall our intelligence community believes that they have been compliant and the IAEA also says so,'' said General Mattis, then Secretary of Defense. In March 2018, IAEA Director Amano stated: ``Iran is implementing its nuclear-related commitments. . . . If the JCPOA were to fail, it would be a great loss for nuclear verification and for multilateralism.'' Finally, No. 4, in January 2019, former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, a former Republican Senator from the State of Indiana, said: ``We continue to assess that Iran is not currently undertaking the key nuclear weapons development activities we judge necessary to produce a nuclear device.'' Three of the four officials--Secretary of State Tillerson, Secretary of Defense Mattis, and Director of National Intelligence Coats--all three were appointed by President Trump. President Trump came into office determined to pull out of this agreement, despite the fact that it was working. He surrounded himself with advisers who supported a policy of regime change. Of course, the words ``regime change'' are words that they will not say out loud--the President or his administration--but that is the policy. The American people, after nearly two decades of conflict, know that regime-change policy is a march to war. This administration calls their regime change policy a ``maximum pressure campaign.'' Its stated goal was to force Iran to negotiate a new agreement that would include a host of other nonnuclear issues. Despite the stated goal, an examination of the methods used to achieve it make it obvious that the administration was engaged in a policy that would most likely lead to war instead of a new agreement. The administration pulled out of the nuclear agreement, which was working, and while it was in effect, it took the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran off the table. The administration reimposed sanctions which were lifted as part of the nuclear agreement. They engaged in a host of other activities that resulted in increased risks and moved us further away from a diplomatic resolution. The administration's regime change policy was supposed to deter the Iranian regime from threatening our Nation and its allies. This policy has not done that. This policy was supposed to bring Iran to the bargaining table. It has not. It was supposed to cajole Iran to behave like a ``normal nation.'' Once again, it has not. Tensions have increased. Threats to our servicemembers, our citizens, and allies have increased, not decreased. The region--the Middle East-- is less stable. Iran is closer--closer--to obtaining a nuclear weapon. The terrible results of this policy were predictable. The administration, including Secretary Pompeo and former National Security Advisor John Bolton, never had any intention of forging a new diplomatic agreement with Iran. All of this is how our Nation has found itself on the brink of war with Iran, facing the potential of another bloody conflict in the Middle East. Americans across our country are well aware of the events leading up to the killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, the leader of Iran's Quds Force on January 2. Following the killing of an American contractor at a U.S. military compound in Kirkuk, Iraq, on December 27, the U.S. military retaliated with a strike against the Iranian-backed Kataib Hezbollah terrorist group, killing at least 25 members of the militia and wounding others. In response, the Iranian Government orchestrated protests in Baghdad, which led hundreds of pro-Iranian protesters to storm the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad on New Year's Eve. The strike against the Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani followed. Soleimani was a military figure who inflicted terror and killed thousands in Israel, Iraq, and Syria as well. You can add other places to that. He killed thousands. He worked to prop up Bashar al-Assad in Syria. He aided Shiite forces that killed hundreds of Americans in Iraq. We have been told that he was behind the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad on New Year's Eve. Qasem Soleimani was directly responsible for the killing of hundreds of American soldiers and civilians and wounding many more. He was a despicable person who was the leader of an entity designated as a terrorist organization. Across the international stage, there are many committed enemies of America who plot every day to do our Nation and our allies harm--every single day. Those entrusted with the national security of our Nation have to assess whether taking direct action against one of those individual enemies increases or decreases risks over time and whether taking actions against those individuals is consistent with our values and our commitment to the rule of law. This is a high standard, and it should be. We are the United States of America, and we believe that conflicts have rules and limits. We strive for a higher standard that both honors our values and protects our security. Because we have high standards and because we expect our leaders to act prudently and with deliberation, the Constitution requires substantial consultation with Congress regarding matters of war except in limited, urgent circumstances. Acting with disregard for these standards, President Trump took this unilateral action. The President may have endangered the lives of U.S. servicemembers in the Middle East. He may have also prompted near- lethal retaliation from Iran. Iran's retaliatory strikes against U.S. bases at Al-Asad and Erbil on January 7 thankfully did not claim any American lives. However, conflicting reports continue to emerge about whether Iran intentionally avoided hitting U.S. personnel, and that raises questions about whether Iran sought to escalate or de-escalate its conflict with the United States. Video evidence has emerged in recent days showing that the Iranians actually decimated housing units for soldiers on the base. Without having received a classified briefing from the administration about this incident--as opposed to the briefing we had on the killing of Soleimani, which I will get to later--without having that classified briefing, we can rely upon press reports for some information. Press reports indicate that the Iranians were aiming to take American lives. The fallout from the Soleimani strike didn't end there. On January 8, the Iranian Government covered up the fact that it mistakenly shot down a civilian aircraft killing 176 people onboard. The Iranian people have since taken to the streets in protest of the coverup. I strongly condemn the Iranian Government's crackdown on protesters and support the Iranian people's right to rise up and demand human rights and democratic governance in their country. But let's not lose focus on a very important matter: President Trump ordered a targeted killing of a high-ranking military official of a country with which we are not in a declared or authorized conflict. This is a serious step which required both a rigorous examination as well as an explanation from the administration. Thus far, the explanations we have received from this administration have been woefully inadequate and inconsistent--and I think that is an understatement. We have been told that this strike was in response to an ``imminent threat'' that four U.S. Embassies abroad were being targeted, which Defense Secretary Esper almost immediately contradicted. The word ``imminence'' is important here. Imminence derives from the doctrine of self-defense, which under article 51 of the United Nations Charter and the broader ``laws of war,'' imminence justifies use of force in another state's territory when an armed attack occurs-- occurs--or when an armed attack is imminent. Some national security scholars define ``imminence'' as ``leaving no reasonable time for nonforceful measures to obviate such a threat.'' I will speak for myself only, but this is true of a number of Senators, I believe. I have yet to see clear evidence that there was ``no reasonable time'' to seek nonlethal, diplomatic options prior to killing Soleimani. The administration has failed to disclose sufficient detail regarding the imminence of this threat. When asked on Friday, Secretary Pompeo said he did not know when this asserted imminent threat was supposed to take place. The American people have also heard from Secretary Pompeo and President Trump that the attack was a matter of retribution from events that occurred in the past. We have heard from Secretary Pompeo that this attack was designed to ``restore deterrence,'' but it is unclear that he coordinated with his national security colleagues across the interagency. We know from reporting from the New York Times that Secretary Pompeo was among the ``most hawkish voices arguing for a response to Iranian aggression.'' The article also goes on to say: ``Top Pentagon officials were stunned'' in reference to the strike. So the question of why this strike was launched and when it was launched remains unanswered. Both Democratic Senators and Republican Senators asked this question in a classified briefing last week and few received a satisfactory answer. We still lack answers on the ``imminent threat.'' The President has spent the last week at rallies and other appearances triumphantly marking the killing and indicating that the Iranian threat is behind us. The strike authorized by President Trump may have been reckless, taken without appropriate planning for the consequences and aftermath, and done without serious consultation with Congress and--and--within the administration. Contrary to the President's boast, I am gravely concerned we will feel the adverse consequences of this administration's actions across the Iran policy landscape for years to come. If we think the attacks on the Al-Asad and Kirkuk bases last Tuesday were the end of Iranian retaliation for Soleimani's death, we are likely mistaken, due to the continued threat of the Iranian regime's proxy forces throughout the Middle East. Let's examine the potential negative consequences of the strike. I hope this is something that the administration engaged in before the strike, but it is important to review this. On January 5, Iran announced that it is no longer bound by the restrictions of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action as it relates to uranium enrichment. This agreement unequivocally extended Iran's breakout time, which is the time it would take to obtain enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb. The agreement extended the breakout time to 12 months--1 year. Again, before the agreement, Iran's breakout time was 2 to 3 months. So the agreement extended that time, meaning making the world safer by extending that time from 2 to 3 months to 1 year. That is where we were with the implementation of the agreement. Without this agreement--the JCPOA--without that agreement in place, Iran could reach the requisite uranium stockpile in as little as 6 months, if not sooner. Iran is closer today to a nuclear weapon than it was a week or so ago, and certainly it is closer to a nuclear weapon since 2018, when the administration withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. That is one consequence we have to consider. Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon. No. 2 is ISIS. If the President's October 2019 withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria and the concurrent abandonment of our Kurdish allies--if that did not create space for the resurgence of ISIS in the Middle East, the President's recent action will almost certainly allow for ISIS to regain a foothold in the region. Just 3 days after the Soleimani strike, the New York Times reported that, and here is the headline, ``U.S.-Led Coalition Halts ISIS Fight as it Steels for Iranian Attacks''--halts ISIS fight. NATO has already suspended its operations against ISIS. We have to consider, how does that outcome make us safer? Next, No. 3, we have to consider what is happening in Iraq. Iraq voted to expel U.S. troops from their country as a result of the strike. If we fully withdraw from Iraq, where are we going to launch counter-ISIS operations in both Iraq and Syria from? How do we do that--from where? Where was the effort to work with the Iraqi Government in quashing Kataib Hezbollah and countering Iranian influence in Iraq? Now that the Iraqi Government opposes U.S. troop presence in its country, what is the plan? How does the administration plan to restart conversations with Iran to negotiate a ``better'' nuclear deal that will ensure Iran never has a nuclear bomb? How do they restart those negotiations? This strike looks more like another step forward in a policy of regime change rather than a coherent strategy designed to keep our Nation safe by using tough diplomacy and alliance-building to confront Iran. I have been one of the most determined advocates of being tough on Iran, especially regarding sanctions. Since I came to the Senate in 2007, I have been part of almost every sanctions push in efforts to so- call tighten the screws on the Iranian regime and hold them fully accountable for their actions. All those steps that I have been a part of, and people of both parties have been a part of, were part of a strategy to get the results we saw when the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was signed. Now, 2 years and after one particularly dangerous week, President Trump has badly undermined all that progress. The advocates of regime change in Iran are closer than ever to getting the United States into a shooting war with Iran. The events of the last few weeks remind me of the lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Across both the House and the Senate, Congress held only seven hearings that dealt directly with the proposed 2002 authorization for the use of military force to authorize the Iraq war. AUMF is the acronym for that. Are seven hearings, over a period of 3 weeks between the House and the Senate, sufficient discussion and debate prior to voting to go to war with Iraq? No. No, that is not sufficient time and not a sufficient number of hearings. At last count, 201 Pennsylvanians were killed in Iraq and over 1,200 were wounded. Have we learned from the mistakes of 2002 and 2003 that led to those deaths and all those Pennsylvanians being wounded and many thousands beyond that killed and wounded in the Iraq war? Have we learned? Have we learned those lessons yet? We have a duty--an abiding obligation--not to repeat the mistakes of the past and to constrain the actions of a President who may endanger the lives of U.S. servicemembers and Americans abroad. Before we get too far down this path, Congress must reassert its constitutional duty to debate and authorize war. Prior to authorizing a strike, we must assess--and I hope the administration did this--whether such an action would have an adverse impact on our national security. Before we march our sons and daughters off to fight another war, we need to make sure we are doing everything possible to prevent the loss of American lives. I have been clear in opposing a direct confrontation with Iran without--without a clear authorization from Congress. The Trump administration acted without a congressionally approved authorization for the use of military force last week. That is why I and many others have cosponsored Senator Tim Kaine's bipartisan S.J. Res. 68 to prevent the President from going to war with Iran without congressional authorization. If you want to go to war with Iran, you ought to be compelled to vote for it, up or down--vote for or against as a Member of Congress. Specifically, this resolution, S.J. Res. 68, requires the President to ``terminate the use of the United States Armed Forces for hostilities against the Islamic Republican of Iran or any part of its government or military unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or a specific authorization for the use of military force'' as enacted by Congress. Nothing in this resolution prevents the United States from ``defending itself against imminent attack.'' Those are the exact words. It is authorization or declaration before you go to war with Iran. I think a lot of Americans--most Americans--believe that is not just the right thing to do but that is our duty, no matter who is President. When the administration fails to brief Congress on threats we face and concurrently takes unilateral actions that could lead to all-out war, we must act quickly and decisively to prevent further escalation and demand a strategy. We owe it to Pennsylvanians, and we owe it to all Americans, especially our men and women in uniform and their families, to engage in a substantial, robust public debate on what engaging in hostilities with Iran would mean for U.S. national security and how it could endanger American lives. The House vote of last Thursday was to reassert this congressional authority, and the Senate will vote this week. I urge a vote in support of S.J. Res. 68, which has several bipartisan cosponsors. This is a dark time, and I cannot overstate my level of concern. I know that concern is shared widely here in Congress but also across the country. As to Iran, we are headed down a path to war, one which could be more bloody, more complicated, and more protracted than any in my lifetime. We have been walking down this path since President Trump pulled out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Every week since, we are a little closer to an armed conflict, and the events of these past weeks have likely turbocharged the dangerous path we are on. Going back to the time of the Vietnam war and thereafter, elected leaders of both political parties have lied to the American people. The American people were told we were making progress, when we weren't. The American people were told that insurgencies were in their ``last throes,'' when the opposite was true. The American people demand that politicians don't make serious mistakes that lead to war. The good news is, we still have time. We have time to get it right. We have time to engage in hard-nosed diplomacy. We have time to reject a policy of regime change regarding Iran. There is time for this administration to outline and implement an effective Iran strategy that substantially reduces the likelihood of war in a nuclear-armed Iran, but time is running short. The administration may be committed to a policy of regime change, but the Senate can act. We can pass the bipartisan S.J. Res. 68 and other measures to make sure this administration cannot take us recklessly to war with Iran without congressional authorization or a declaration of war. We owe it to the American people and to our servicemembers to do this. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to honor and recognize the service of the brave veterans and servicemembers who have served on the USS Pittsburgh (SSN-720), one of 62 nuclear-powered, fast-attack, Los Angeles-class submarines that have formed the backbone of the U.S. Navy's submarine force. This month the USS Pittsburgh (SSN-720) will complete the decommissioning process in Bremerton, WA. The USS Pittsburgh first launched in 1984 and was commissioned the following year. In its 35 years of exemplary service, the USS Pittsburgh (SSN-720) patrolled American waters, offered logistical support to servicemembers around the world, and took part in vital missions launching strikes into Iraq during Operation Desert Storm in 1991 and in Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2002. The USS Pittsburgh (SSN-720) completed its final Active-Duty patrol on February 25, 2019, when it arrived at its home port at New London, CT, Naval Base. From there, the USS Pittsburgh (SSN-720) made its final sea journey in a rare Arctic transit, to Naval Base Kitsap-Bremerton. It was the first and thus far only submarine of its class to make such a journey. The USS Pittsburgh (SSN-720) is the fourth U.S. Navy vessel named for the great city of Pittsburgh whose steel mills helped forge America's industrial success and now serves as a center of medical innovation and scientific advancement. The USS Pittsburgh (SSN-720), like its namesake city, represents the best of American ingenuity, duty and excellence. I am proud to represent Pittsburgh and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the U.S. Senate, and I thank the veterans and Active-Duty servicemembers who have served aboard the USS Pittsburgh (SSN-720) over the last four decades.

Mr. CASEY

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

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of 1LT Michael Cleary from Dallas, PA. It has been 14 years since his death. Michael is one of some 288 Pennsylvanians killed in action in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. First Lieutenant Cleary served as platoon leader of the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Team in E Company, 1st of the 15th Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division of the U.S. Army. On December 20, 2005, First Lieutenant Cleary was killed in action while working in a bomb factory near Samarra, Iraq. His platoon was ambushed outside the facility. He was just 24 years old. Even prior to joining the Army, Michael Cleary was an active member of his community. He graduated from Dallas Senior High School in Dallas, PA, and was a 4-year varsity athlete in both soccer and tennis. He was captain of both teams in his senior year. He received the Dr. Pepper Soccer MVP Scholarship and a history scholarship at high school graduation and was offered academic scholarships at Ursinus College, Gettysburg, as well as Dickinson and Lafayette--all very strong academic institutions of higher education in Pennsylvania. He followed his father's footsteps and chose Hamilton College in New York. While at Hamilton, First Lieutenant Cleary participated in varsity soccer and lettered in varsity tennis. After the September 11, 2001, attacks on our Nation, he wanted to enlist in the Special Forces but chose to follow the advice of his mother and stayed in school until completing his studies. In May 2003, he graduated from Hamilton with honors. During his senior year, he applied to and was accepted into the Marine flight officer program. He was notified that his class would be deferred until January. Not wanting to wait any longer to serve his country, Michael Cleary decided to enlist in the U.S. Army. Three weeks after college graduation, he went to basic training and earned his airborne wings and sapper tab and graduated from the Special Air Service Antiterrorist Course. The news of First Lieutenant Cleary's death came just before he was scheduled to return home during the Christmas season. He was also planning to get married 2 months after he returned home to his high school sweetheart. First Lieutenant Cleary earned the following awards and decorations: the Army Achievement Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, and Overseas Service Ribbon. His family also received First Lieutenant Cleary's U.S. Army Bronze Star and Purple Heart. Following his death, First Lieutenant Cleary's father, Jack, described his last conversation with his son the day before he died. Jack Cleary is someone I have gotten to know since his son's passing, but here is what Jack said at that time. I am quoting him directly. ``He''--meaning Michael--``was very upset that they were sending home some of his men without their awards . . . for things like promotions, and he was fighting for his men. That is the kind of officer he was. Michael was a fine man. He cared about all people, great and small.'' Jack Cleary knows of what he speaks because he, himself, served in Vietnam and, as I mentioned earlier, was also a graduate of the same college. 1LT Michael Cleary's legacy lives on with his family. His mother, Marianne, is a member of Gold Star Mothers where she works to support veterans, military families, and her community every day. Jon Bellona, Michael's college roommate, is a director and founder of the 1LT Michael Joseph Cleary: Run for the Fallen, a run across America to raise awareness about the lives of those who fought to activate their memories and to keep their spirits alive. Run for the Fallen supports organizations that help wounded veterans, as well as the families of those killed, and helps aid the healing process for those Americans whose lives have been affected by war. All Americans are grateful for the friends and family of fallen servicemembers who not only continue the legacy of service to the Nation, but who take their tragedy and turn it into a force for good. 1LT Michael Cleary is one of so many bright, talented, and dedicated young men and women who have died in service to our country. While I speak specifically of Michael today, his story is the story of thousands of men and women across our country, hundreds of them in Pennsylvania who have given their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan and also have given their lives in service of American values, values like democracy and liberty and rule of law. As we remember Michael Cleary, we should also remember the words of Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln reminded us that people like Michael Cleary gave, as Lincoln said, ``The last full measure of devotion to our country.'' It is at times like this when we should remember not only those words, but also other words from the Gettysburg Address, where he said, ``It is us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.'' So that was our charge from President Lincoln all those generations ago. We must strive every day, whether we are citizens or public officials, whatever our station in life, we must strive every day to complete that unfinished work that Lincoln talked about, so that, as we discuss major security issues like U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan or combating the resurgence of ISIS in the Middle East or exercising oversight over U.S. military engagements overseas and look increasingly to try to resolve complicated global crises, we must not forget that those who have given the ultimate sacrifice and service to our country, particularly in the most recent wars, are those we should remember. Just consider these numbers of Americans who have lost their lives in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, with an additional seven killed in African Command operations since 2001. That number is 6,989 Americans just in those conflicts, just in that timeframe. These 6,989 Americans includes some 300 servicemembers from Pennsylvania, the fifth highest total of any State. No. 2, over 49,000 in that time period have been wounded, including more than roughly 2,000 from Pennsylvania. So 6,989 killed since 2001 nationwide and over 49,000 wounded in that time period. Third, although the administration refuses to be transparent in its deployment tracking, press reports indicate that approximately 19,000 Americans are currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, with an additional 65,000 serving the Persian Gulf and Saudi Arabia. This year, Pennsylvania lost MSG Benjamin Hines of York County, PA, assigned to the 25th Marine Regiment, 4th Marine Division, Marine Forces Reserve. He was killed by a roadside bomb on April 8 in Parwan Province, Afghanistan, along with two other marines: SSG Christopher Slutman and SGT Robert Hendricks. Staff Sergeant Slutman also had family ties to my home State of Pennsylvania. While we are so grateful that Pennsylvania did not suffer more losses this year, any loss of life is not only devastating, but should also cause us to reconsider the nature of our military commitments overseas. These fighting men and women are born into families, not into divisions and brigades. They are sons and daughters, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers. Their love for their families are matched only by their devotion to our country, but many more bear the scars of war. Some families have a loved one who served in Iraq or Afghanistan and were returned home, but who were one of the more than 49,000 who were wounded. We must not overlook the unusually high percentage of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who have died since returning home, whether from a drug overdose or suicide or the effects of combat. Thousands of American families continue to pay a terrible price for the courage and dedication of their family members who gave life and limb for this country. We have much to think about, not only on this day, but, of course, in this season--this season of hope, this season of gratitude, this season of our time together with our families back home, but we should especially remember those families who have loved and lost, those who have lost someone in combat, those who have lost someone who served so nobly, served on behalf of the rest of us. At this time, Mr. President, I know you have personal experience with this, having served yourself, and I know that you understand this. It is an important time to remember those who have given so much for our country, with the spirit of gratitude for their service, hope that we don't have more losses in the coming year, and with confidence that they have set a great example for us. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

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

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this morning, or I guess this afternoon, to talk about a couple of issues. I will start with healthcare and talk about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, as well as another piece of legislation we are considering in the next couple of days. Let me start with healthcare. There is a lot to talk about here. We don't have time for all of it today, but a number of things are happening on the healthcare front that I think most Americans are aware of but maybe have not heard a lot about recently. I would argue there are three basic threats to healthcare right now-- not just healthcare for some but, in large measure, healthcare for all. One is a lawsuit, which is being litigated in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. It is a lawsuit that would wipe out the Affordable Care Act, and that lawsuit has already prevailed at the district court level. It is now before the appellate court, and if that lawsuit were to prevail, the Affordable Care Act--or I should say it by its full name--the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would be declared unconstitutional. That would have ramifications not only for those 20 million who got covered--coverage they didn't have before--but also the tens of millions who have protections they never had before the act was passed in 2010. If you have a preexisting condition, for example--roughly, one out of two Americans has a preexisting condition--if you have one, you should be very concerned about the result of that lawsuit, the determination of which could be made in a matter of days or weeks. That is a big threat. That is the biggest threat to healthcare for virtually every American or at least every American family. The second big threat to healthcare is what the administration has undertaken since day one of the Trump administration, and that is the sabotage of the existing system in this regard, especially with respect to the insurance exchanges. What the administration has done is try to take administrative action, action by agencies under the President's jurisdiction, to undermine the exchanges. How do they do that? Well, they cut the advertising. So when they advertise to say that you can shop for a health insurance plan on the exchanges, they cut the advertising budget by 90 percent. They left 10 percent there. I guess we are supposed to be happy with that. So they cut advertising by 90 percent. Then they started attacking the contracts for navigators. These are individuals all across the country who sit with people and say: Let me help you go through the options you might have for purchasing insurance or changing your insurance plan. For example, right now, we are in an open enrollment period, so folks can change their health insurance plans until Sunday--basically, December 15. It would be nice to have a navigator--an assistant, in a sense--sitting next to you if you are making those decisions about your healthcare. So threat No. 1 to healthcare is the lawsuit; threat No. 2 is the sabotage; and threat No. 3 has not quite played out yet, but I don't know a Member of the House or the Senate in the Republican caucus in either Chamber who is not against the threat--the cuts to Medicare and Medicaid proposed by the administration. I thought it was bad when the administration--or I should say, House Republicans--back in the spring of 2018 proposed a cut of $1 trillion to the Medicaid Program over 10 years. That was bad enough. That was dangerous enough. But the administration went further than that. The administration's proposal and, I have to say, unless it is contradicted, the official position of Republican Members of Congress is a 10-year cut to Medicaid of $1\1/2\ trillion--$1\1/2\ trillion. That means the official Republican position in Congress--unless they say they disagree with the President, and I haven't heard any Member say that yet--is that the Medicaid Program should be cut by $150 billion each and every year for 10 years. That is the proposed cut. That is Medicaid. By the way, Medicaid is the kids' disabilities and nursing home program, for shorthand. Most of the people helped by Medicaid are folks in nursing homes, low-income children, children from low-income families, and children with disabilities who have a substantial stake in this. When you consider those three threats--the lawsuit, the sabotage, and the budget cuts--all are bad news, but then when you start getting into the details of each, you realize one aspect of this, which I wanted to raise today, and that is the adverse impact on children. We are told by the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute Center for Children and Families--I am holding up a November 2019 summary of a report, a back and a front. I will not read all of it and I will not enter it into the Record because there is a lot of detail here that we probably can't enter into the Record. I do want to read into the Record a couple of highlights from it, though. These folks have been doing research on children's health insurance for many years and have spent their lives working on this. The headline reads ``The Number of Uninsured Children is on the Rise.'' The United States of America, which finally, decades after passing the Medicaid Program, which was a great advancement in children's health insurance, then added to that with the enactment in the 1990s of the Children's Health Insurance Program--it had the letter ``S'' before it, the SCHIP program--which really was adopting programs that have been adopted in my home State of Pennsylvania and a few others. That same country which made a great advancement for children's health with Medicaid--tens of millions of kids--then made a greater advancement with the Children's Health Insurance Program and then made even more substantial gains when we passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and substantially drove down the number of uninsured Americans. Basically what happened was that about 20 million people got healthcare coverage in about 6 years--not even a decade. A number of those Americans were children. As we were substantially driving down the uninsured rate, what has happened in the last 2 years? The uninsured rate is going up. The Census Bureau told us in September that the uninsured rate is going up by 2 million people--to be exact, 1.9 million people. A big share of the 1.9 million people who are now uninsured--that number is going up instead of down, as it had been for most of the decade--a lot of those are children. Here is a summary of finding No. 1 in this report by the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute Center for Children and Families, November 2019. It is by Joan Alker and Lauren Roygardner. ``The number of uninsured children in the United States increased by more than 400,000 between 2016 and 2018, bringing the total to over 4 million uninsured children in the nation.'' That same Nation which made great advancements by lowering the number of uninsured children is now going in the wrong direction. Finding No. 2: ``These coverage losses are widespread, with 15 states showing statistically significant increases in the number and/or the rate of uninsured children.'' The following States are listed: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia. That is significant. Those States are represented in some cases by two Democratic Senators, sometimes two Republican Senators, and sometimes Senators of both parties. So it is happening in a widespread fashion. The rate of uninsured children is going up. Finding No. 3: ``Loss of coverage is most pronounced for white children and Latino children (some of which may fall into both categories).'' The other category where the number is going up substantially is younger children, under the age of 6. So we are not just talking about children losing coverage; we are talking about that number being more pronounced for children under the age of 6. This also includes children in low- to moderate-income families who earn between 138 percent and 250 percent of the poverty level, meaning a little more than 29,000 bucks to 53,000 bucks annually--``bucks'' is my word, not the report's word--$29,435 to $53,325 annually for a family of three. So these folks who are struggling in a lot of ways-- low-income families trying to climb that ladder to get to the middle class, in many cases working two or three jobs, trying to make ends meet--at least in many cases, their children had coverage, and now children in those families are losing coverage. Point No. 4 and the last point: ``States that have not expanded Medicaid to parents and other adults under the Affordable Care Act have seen increases in their rate of uninsured children three times as large as states that have,'' meaning States that expanded Medicaid. The expansion of Medicaid was part of that advancement I talked about. The three threats to healthcare are bad enough. It is especially bad when you consider that the Americans who are carrying the heaviest burden of that uninsured rate going up are, in fact, children. The second thing I want to raise is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. We had a great effort undertaken in the 2018 farm bill. There were efforts by some to cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which we used to know as food stamps. Fortunately, those efforts to cut the program and to knock people off of the SNAP program were unsuccessful. We came together in a bipartisan effort in both the House and the Senate, and the President signed it into the law just about a year ago--December 2018. The ink was barely dry on his signature when his administration and the Department of Agriculture started to think of other ways to do the same thing to SNAP they couldn't do by way of legislation. So where are we? Well, we have had basically three proposals over the course of the last year by the administration that would take 4 million people out of the SNAP program, kick 4 million people off the program. Here is what one of those proposals would do: According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's own estimates, the proposed changes to one part of SNAP called categorical eligibility would eliminate millions from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and it could also leave nearly 1 million children without access to free school meals. I don't know about everyone here, but I think that is a step in the wrong direction. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is important not only for those families--many of them working families, many of them with a child in the household who needs food assistance, who faces food insecurity without SNAP--many of those same families might have a child and an individual with a disability in the same household or one or the other. That is the SNAP program. By the way, everyone else in the country benefits when people spend those SNAP dollars because when you provide those dollars and folks buy food, guess what happens. You guessed it. The economy gets a jump-start from that activity. The SNAP program isn't about just the people who are directly benefiting. I think we have an obligation to help them, for sure. We all benefit when there is economic activity. There is more than a bang for the buck in the SNAP program; you spend a buck, and you get a lot more than a buck in return. This is all in the context of where we are with a lot of families. We hear a lot on the floor of this Chamber and I am sure on the floor of the other body, the House, about ``Well, certain people shouldn't get this benefit,'' and some make an argument against that. It is interesting that in the SNAP program for many years now, not just for the last couple of years, the payment error rate in that program has been way down, the lowest levels ever. Why? It is because of good efforts to detect fraud, and also technology allows payments to be tracked. The payment error rate is at its lowest level ever. Yet we still have efforts undertaken to knock people out of the program. That is not just insulting, it is very dangerous to people's lives. I hope Members of the Senate will tell the administration to back off those proposals that have been undertaken to knock literally, if you have the effect of all three proposals, 4 million people off of the program, many of whom are children. This all happens in the context of those healthcare issues I raised before. The same child or the same family who might have their SNAP benefits cut or taken away might be the same family who is losing their coverage because of cuts to Medicaid and Medicare or because of the uninsured rate going way up in a country that was driving it way down. Both are happening at the same time.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, the Senate is about to vote on the Over- the-Counter Monograph Safety, Innovation, and Reform Act of 2019. I want to thank my friend and colleague Senator Isakson for his good work on this for many years, Chairman Alexander, and Ranking Member Patty Murray. The current OTC monograph system is broken, and what we are talking about, in simple form, is literally what is on your pill bottle, that kind of information. It is a broken system. The FDA doesn't have the authority to move swiftly when there is a threat to public health; it doesn't have the opportunity to update existing monographs; and there is no incentive for innovation. This legislation is decades overdue. I am grateful for the good work of so many who made it possible. It is a commonsense bill, consumer group supported, industry stakeholder supported, and of course the FDA not only supports it but needs it. I will now yield to my friend and colleague, Senator Johnny Isakson.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, today, the Senate passed S. 2740, the Over-the-Counter Monograph Safety, Innovation, and Reform Act of 2019, which will completely overhaul and improve how the Food and Drug Administration--FDA--regulates over-the-counter--OTC--or nonprescription, drugs. These medicines are used by Americans every day, but our regulatory system has been stuck in the 1970s and has not kept pace with innovation or the need to ensure appropriate consumer protections. Senator Johnny Isakson and I have been working on this legislation since 2016. This legislation creates a modern regulatory system for OTC drugs, providing the FDA with new resources to be able to review changes to existing OTC drugs and allow the marketing of new OTC drugs. FDA will have the authority to take swift action to protect the American public if a serious problem arises and to make changes to how OTC drugs are allowed to be sold if the science indicates that the steps are necessary to ensure that these products are used safely. The Over-the-Counter Monograph Safety, Innovation, and Reform Act of 2019 establishes a streamlined administrative process which allows the FDA to modify a drug's safety labeling to address new health risks. The act is intended to modernize and accelerate regulatory procedures applicable to OTC drugs and will also allow for increased innovation. However, patient safety and manufacturer accountability are of equal importance. As such, nothing in this act is intended to change, diminish, or prohibit a manufacturer from performing any duty or complying with any requirement to warn consumers that exists under State or Federal law or to prevent any labeling changes pursuant to any other applicable provision of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or FDA regulation. It is imperative that consumers have accurate information regarding the safety of over-the-counter drugs, and this bill is intended to improve that process while maintaining the existing rights of consumers to access the courts and hold manufacturers accountable when harmed. This legislation has bipartisan support and also broad support from key stakeholders in public health, healthcare, and industry. I am deeply grateful for the work of my colleagues, notably Senator Johnny Isakson--the bill's sponsor; and the chairman and ranking Member of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Senator Lamar Alexander and Senator Patty Murray, and their staffs for their continued support for this important effort. As a result of our work, American consumers will be able to have greater confidence in their over-the-counter drugs and will benefit from new innovation in the years to come.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, keeping with the brevity that we have to exercise now because I know the guest of honor may have to leave the floor and others are going to speak before he leaves, I will write a longer statement for the Record with detail. Johnny, it goes without saying--we keep saying it over and over again--how much we are going to miss you, not only because of the bipartisan work you did and the legislative achievements but because of who you are--your decency, your integrity, your warmth even in the heat of a battle. We are grateful for all of that. I will just make brief mention of a few issues. I will start with the Global Food Security Act, which was started here in the Senate by Senator Dick Lugar way back in the period even before 2009 when I began to work with him. Johnny made it possible for us to finally get that passed. What that act does is put into law to authorize into the future the Feed the Future program, one of the most successful programs the U.S. Government ever undertook. Millions of children have been saved from chronic hunger or stunting, where they literally cannot grow because they haven't been able to get enough to eat. That program will now be perpetuated over time because of the work of Johnny Isakson. I will add more numbers to that in my written version. Here is how Feed the Future is described in their website: It is a program that works with ``partner countries to develop their agricultural sectors and break the vicious cycle of poverty and hunger'' the world over for the countries that are participating. I will start with that. Second--I will be very brief on the next three--is the Children's Hospitals Graduate Medical Education, the so-called CHGME Program that funds residency programs at children's hospitals. Johnny knows about this well in the State of Georgia, and three of those hospitals are in my home State of Pennsylvania. It would not be possible for that program to continue without the good work of Johnny Isakson. Third, disabilities. We don't have time for all of it today, but I know that Johnny and his wife Dianne have worked with students with disabilities for years, and Johnny has been a partner dedicated to improving the lives of people with disabilities. I will go into that in more detail in my written version. Finally, the last one I will mention for purposes of today, Johnny, is the work that you did on the pediatric priority review vouchers program, which makes it possible for drug companies to develop new drugs for rare pediatric diseases. Johnny, you and I are working these days, in these hours, to get the Over-the-Counter Monograph Reform done. Thank you for the work you have done on that. For these and for so many other reasons, I will conclude with this, Johnny. There is an inscription on one of the State government buildings I worked in at Harrisburg, PA, for 10 years. It is a beautiful inscription of public service that applies to you personally and your integrity and to the work you have done: ``All public service is a trust, given in faith and accepted in honor.'' You have always accepted that trust the people of Georgia gave you. You have returned that with honor. We are grateful to be your friend. Congratulations on your work. God bless you. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, on rollcall vote 372, I voted no. It was my intention to vote aye. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.

Mr. CASEY

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