Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today in commemoration of the 75th anniversary of the electronic numerical integrator and computer. This anniversary, formally known as ENIAC Day, marks the 1946 dedication at the University of Pennsylvania of the first all- electronic, programmable computer.

Invented by John Mauchly and J. Presper Eckert of the University's Moore School of Electrical Engineering, construction of the computer began in July 1943. After several years of tireless work, Mauchly and Eckert produced a 27-ton computer that occupied 1,800 square feet of floor space and could complete complex calculations near instantaneously. Also due credit are the original programmers of ENIAC, Kathleen McNulty Mauchly Antonelli, Jean Jennings Bartik, Frances Betty Snyder Holberton, Marlyn Wescoff Meltzer, Frances Bilas Spence, and Ruth Lichterman Teitelbaum, without whom the operation of the machine would not be possible. After ENIAC, Mauchly and Eckert continued to be industry pioneers and went on to invent UNIVAC, the first commercial computer. Today's Unisys Corporation, which I am proud to note is headquartered in Blue Bell, PA, traces a momentous part of its origins back to J. Presper Eckert and John Mauchly and their early inventions.

As we mark this 75th anniversary, we marvel at the impact of ENIAC and how far computers have come. While ENIAC was originally intended as a tool to further our national defense, we have come to rely on later iterations of the computer in all aspects of life. Computers enable us to be more efficient, more connected and have transformed the world we live in. I look forward to what the world looks like when we celebrate the 100th anniversary of ENIAC Day in 2046.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise tonight and, again, it is my privilege to come before the Senate, as I have since my very first year here, to celebrate Black History Month in a particular way by paying tribute to a number of Pennsylvanians.

I am honored again to have the opportunity to highlight the extraordinary leadership of Pennsylvanians who dedicate their lives to improving their communities and who wake up every day to rededicate themselves to that effort. This year I am grateful to be able to recognize three honorees--Glynis Johns, Justan Parker Fields, and Dr. Ala Stanford--and to recognize each of these individuals in a very personal way in terms of their work in their communities in Pennsylvania. Each of them are having a remarkable impact in their communities.

The theme of this year's recognition is ``Bending the Arc: Celebrating Catalysts for Change.'' We know that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., spoke of ``bending the arc'' on many occasions, but, most notably, in his address at the conclusion of the Selma to Montgomery March in 1965 in March of that year, when he said:

The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards

justice.

Our late and beloved colleague here in the Congress, Congressman John Lewis, carried that same spirit with him. He lived it, and he believed that we will get there someday, get there to a better day for justice. Congressman Lewis also said:

We will redeem the soul of America, and in doing so, we

will inspire people around the world to stand up and speak

out.

We know that justice, of course, takes hard work. In the face of adversity and exhaustion, to be the voice that stands up and speaks out, as John Lewis suggested, is not a decision that a person makes once and then just follows a well-worn path. It, of course, requires perseverance. It requires hope and faith.

Dr. King reminds us that justice is the--to use his words--is the ``fierce urgency of now.'' Dr. King and Congressman Lewis understood that while the arc of the moral universe does bend toward justice, this is not something to which one can attach themselves a path that you can follow passively. To bend that arc toward justice requires strenuous exertion that often gets you enemies before it makes you any friends. It does not bend on its own but bends only--only--under the weight of acts of courage and the hard work of those who have committed themselves to the struggle for justice and equality.

President Obama, as well, in his work every day of his Presidency, did work to bend the arc on issues of racial, economic, and global justice, and he continues to do so in his years as a former President. Congressman Lewis not only gave all of us words to live by and inspiration, he also gave all of himself to the cause of justice. But his example, the example of John Lewis, still serves as an inspiration for the next generation of leaders. It is why Dr. King spent his entire life fighting for racial equality, voting rights, nonviolence, and the rights of the poor. King's work for the lives of others cost him his very own. We should honor his sacrifice daily and not simply during Black History Month.

But we know that behind every man and every woman leading the fight for justice stands a multitude. Behind Dr. King, millions labored and labor still for civil rights and voting rights. We saw that this summer when millions of Americans across our Nation took to the streets to condemn the mistreatment of Black Americans at the hands of law enforcement. And we saw it just last month when African Americans voted in extraordinary numbers in the Georgia special elections to send Rev.

Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff to the U.S. Senate.

For every leader who rises to national prominence--Dr. King, President Obama, Congressman Lewis, Vice President Kamala Harris, Stacey Abrams, just to mention a few--there are leaders and communities across the country who are themselves doing transformational work, who are doing their part to bend the arc of the moral universe, and to bend it, of course, toward justice.

Today, it is my privilege to highlight three such leaders from Pennsylvania. I will start in my home region and in my hometown, Scranton, PA, Glynis Johns.

First, I speak as a son of Scranton, the city I was born in and still live in. I was proud to honor a daughter--or I should say am proud, tonight, to honor a daughter from Scranton, Glynis Johns. Glynis is the founder and CEO of the Black Scranton Project, a nonprofit organization, a local heritage initiative and public history venture dedicated to archiving and celebrating the Black history of our hometown that too often has been overlooked and has been obscured. She received a B.A. and an M.A. in sociology from St. John's University and is currently a doctoral student at Rutgers.

Glynis did not always plan to become a local historian, but like so many, she became one because she saw a need, and she responded to it. While working on a research project during her master's program at St. John's, the stories called to her, and she knew she needed to share these stories. For her project, she investigated why the Black community is overlooked and seen as transient in a city like Scranton. She kept uncovering stories through old newspaper archives and historical memorabilia, and she knew she had to return to her hometown to share these stories and rebuild a community.

She is proud to shift local perspectives on culture, inclusion, representation, and history within the city of Scranton. As a native and as a resident, I am grateful for her work to uncover these stories for our entire community to learn and to enjoy.

I first met Glynis just last year, 2020. It was the Juneteenth Jubilee, which she organized in our hometown, along with her fellow Black Scranton board members. It was both a celebration and a call to action, and that was in the midst of a summer of Black Lives Matter rallies and marches.

From the moment I arrived at that event and saw hundreds of, at that time, socially distanced and masked attendees, I saw her dedication. I saw her commitment firsthand. In addition to events like the Juneteenth Jubilee, Glynis and her colleagues at the Black Scranton Project are hard at work on their plan to reopen the Black Scranton Project Center for Arts & Culture. The center will provide a safe, secure, and diverse environment that will lead to equity and inclusion for all residents by offering support like job assistance, career readiness training for adults, and also afterschool and summer programs for children. The plans for the center are ambitious, and I know that Glynis and her team are up for this important task. I am looking forward to walking through the doors of the center to see their work for myself as soon as it opens.

Having spaces for the community to come together to learn is necessary. It is necessary to build up and support the community, and I am grateful for Glynis's commitment to do this work in our hometown. I know firsthand how Scranton can benefit from young people like Glynis moving up and dedicating their time to making our city and region a better place to live. We are lucky to have her talents and her drive.

We know that in March of 2020, she was named one of the most ``Influential Women of Northeastern Pennsylvania'' in Happenings magazine and was also named a ``Top 20 under 40 Young Business Professionals'' as part of the 2019 honors, and that was in the Northeastern Pennsylvania Business Journal. Glynis has already accomplished so much, and I am looking forward to watching her contributions to our hometown over the years to come.

Our second honoree for Black History Month is Justan Parker Fields from the Lehigh Valley, just south of Northeastern Pennsylvania, where the city of Allentown is, and it is right on the New Jersey border. Justan is a resident of the city of Allentown.

Following the deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor just last year, Justan decided to gather a few of his friends in the city of Allentown, in the downtown, to bring attention to these and other injustices against the African-American community. This gathering gained attention across the city and was attended by hundreds, including the mayor of Allentown, the police chief, and elected officials from across the Lehigh Valley. This event gave the residents of Allentown an opportunity to express their thoughts and frustrations surrounding racial injustice, and from there, Justan and his colleagues founded Black Lives Matter Lehigh Valley. They founded it in order to create a platform to initiate real change in their community.

Since then, Justan's activism has only increased. He worked to form a collective with other local community and nonprofit leaders in the area to brainstorm about new initiatives for racial justice, for equity, and for equality for Black and Brown residents of the Lehigh Valley, and his work is not going unnoticed.

I spoke with Justan and his colleagues shortly after their first event, and over the past year, he has remained in regular communication with my office to discuss the progress that Black Lives Matter Lehigh Valley is making in Allentown and in surrounding communities. He has also provided testimony to the Pennsylvania House Democratic Policy Committee, partnered with the city of Allentown to review their use of force policy, and he has also worked with the Allentown City Council to draft recommendations for police reform in the city.

His activism has been inspiring to me and to so many others, and I know that that same inspiration draws other young people to his work. His hope is that those who attend his rallies or follow Black Lives Matter Lehigh Valley on social media are motivated to jump-start their activism and their fight for equality.

Justan lives in Allentown with his partner Kevin and children, Shyllee and Shamaer. There is no doubt that Justan's work in Allentown is creating a healthier and more inclusive community for his children and others like him.

Justan and Kevin have founded Change Now, a local nonprofit that serves families in need in the greater Lehigh Valley. They have hosted food drives, delivered emergency food relief packages to families, hosted a Friendsgiving Dinner for the city, and sponsored Christmas presents for over 100 children. Justan said that if there is anything this pandemic taught him, it was that anyone, any family was just an illness away from needing serious help.

Through his work with both Change Now and Black Lives Matter Lehigh Valley, Justan continues to make Allentown and the Greater Lehigh Valley a better place to live. And I thank him, and I know I speak on behalf of so many Pennsylvanians in thanking him for the many contributions to his community and to our Commonwealth.

Third and final, going further south to the southeastern corner of our State in the Philadelphia region, Dr. Ala Stanford. As we recognize changemakers this year, I am honored to recognize the contributions of Dr. Stanford.

She is an experienced physician, board certified by the American Board of Surgery in both general adult and pediatric general and thoracic surgery. She founded the Black Doctors COVID Consortium. It goes by the acronym BDCC. So many people have heard about them in our State and beyond. This consortium is an initiative established to provide African Americans, who, of course, we know are suffering disproportionately from the incidence of and the mortality surrounding COVID-19--this consortium provides those Americans, those Pennsylvanians, with testing and education. Her work addresses not only the urgency of the present moment due to the pandemic but also a legacy of systemic structural racism that has left the Black community with significant health disparities--I think that is an understatement--and a mistrust of the healthcare system.

I have had the privilege of engaging with Dr. Stanford on many occasions.

She has provided her subject matter expertise to my office countless times, and she has been an unrelenting and passionate advocate for the communities, the people, and the families whom she serves.

It is important to note that Dr. Stanford started the consortium, BDCC, with her own funds, her own money, which is a true testament to her commitment to delivering quality care to Black Americans. Dr. Stanford stepped up at an extremely volatile and uncertain time for the people of our State. This speaks volumes about her leadership and her dedication to addressing the enormous disparity in healthcare, both healthcare access and healthcare outcomes, for African Americans.

Last month, I was honored to, again, participate in the annual celebration of the life and legacy of Dr. King at Girard College, where BDCC set up a testing site, which they have done in every neighborhood throughout the city of Philadelphia. At that event, someone shared a powerful yet sobering quotation of Dr. King. Here is that quotation:

In March of 1966, at a press conference ahead of his

address to the Medical Community for Human Rights in Chicago,

[Dr. King] said that--

And I am quoting Dr. King here--

``of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health is the

most shocking and the most inhumane because it often results

in physical death.''

So said Dr. King about the terrible inequity in healthcare.

Visionary leaders and health experts like Dr. Stanford are on the frontlines every single day, working to fix a broken system--a system, frankly, that has been unfair to so many communities of color. However, Dr. Stanford is committed--committed--to making change happen in our healthcare system so it can better serve the African-American community.

She and her team have made national headlines and garnered the well- deserved attention and support of many across the Nation as a result of the work of this consortium. So I thank Dr. Stanford for being an advocate, for being an anchor for the community, and, of course, a trusted leader.

As I conclude, I think it goes without saying that this year has been a long, difficult, and dark year. I have to say, though, in the midst of all of that darkness and all of the pain--we just left the front of the Capitol in remembrance of the 500,000 Americans who have died from COVID-19--despite all that pain, all that loss, all that darkness, this month of February, which just happens to be Black History Month, gives me some hope. In so many ways, I think our hope can be renewed.

While the pandemic still rages, especially in those communities of color I spoke of, we also see that with continued education and leadership and courage, such as someone like Dr. Stanford provides, and, of course, with vaccines available, COVID-19 will begin to recede, and we will once again be able to hug our friends and family members and to move on from this pandemic. So we commend and salute people like Dr. Stanford who are helping us through this difficult time, providing some light in that darkness.

Leaders like Justin Parker Fields have stood up to confront injustice and to proclaim to law enforcement and elected officials that the lives of Black men and women matter and are deserving of the same protection as any other life.

As we saw people go through the polls this fall voting, and then others voting in January in Georgia, all of these Americans refusing to be intimidated by misinformation and threats, I was more hopeful. Young leaders in communities of color have insisted on telling their own stories and writing them into the book of history that for too long has been kept hidden from them, just as Glynis Johns is doing in our hometown of Scranton.

Each of our honorees, and so many like them, have indeed bent the arc of the moral universe toward justice, and for those brave acts, for those courageous acts, we honor them today in Black History Month. May God bless their work.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 12 noon, Wednesday, February 24; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; further, that upon conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of Jennifer Granholm to be Secretary of Energy; that the cloture motion with respect to the Granholm nomination ripen at 4 p.m.; that the mandatory quorum call be waived; finally, that the Senate recess from 3 p.m. until 4 p.m. for the all-Senators briefing.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging, having adopted rules governing its procedures for the 117th Congress, have a copy of their rules printed in the Record pursuant to XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Sanding Rules of the Senate.

Mr. President, today I want to pay tribute to the late Richard L. Thornburgh, a former Pennsylvania Governor and former U.S. Attorney General. Dick Thornburgh was also a hero to the disability community for his longstanding advocacy for the rights and self- determination of people with disabilities.

Born in Pittsburgh on July 16, 1932, Dick received an undergraduate degree from Yale University and a law degree from the University of Pittsburgh Law School before going into private practice.

In 1969, President Richard Nixon appointed Dick as the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and in 1975, President Gerald Ford appointed him to serve as the Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Criminal Division. Two years later, he returned to Pennsylvania.

In 1978, Dick was elected Governor of Pennsylvania and was reelected in 1982, becoming the first Republican to serve two successive terms as Governor of the Commonwealth.

During his time in office, Governor Thornburgh provided a steady hand and a calm demeanor. Most notably, he led Pennsylvania through the Three Mile Island crisis, America's worst nuclear meltdown. He took charge of the crisis and in so doing won praise from President Jimmy Carter and from Pennsylvanians for how he handled the potential disaster. At the time of the Three Mile Island Crisis, Governor Thornburgh said:

You have to reassure people. You have to go before the

cameras and microphones and tell them what you know and what

you don't. You have to stop the rumors and, of course, you

have to make decisions. There isn't any Republican or

Democratic way to deal with a nuclear crisis. Nobody has ever

had to deal with this kind of accident before.

In 1988, President Ronald Reagan nominated Governor Thornburgh to be the U.S. Attorney General, a position in which he served until 1991. He resigned in 1991 to run for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania following the tragic death of Senator John Heinz in a plane crash. Governor Thornburgh lost the Senate election to Harris Wofford, who had been appointed to the vacancy 6 months before the 1991 election.

Following his Senate run, Governor Thornburgh served a 1-year appointment as Under-Secretary General at the United Nations at the request of President George H.W. Bush. In that role, he sought to bring reform, transparency, and accountability to the United Nations.

After his service at the United Nations, Governor Thornburgh returned to private practice but would continue to serve in advisory roles at the State and Federal level, imparting his wisdom and experience in a number of different arenas.

Of his many contributions to public life, Governor Thornburgh was especially respected in the disability rights community for his tireless advocacy for the rights and self-determination of people with disabilities.

Governor Thornburgh's son, Peter, was injured in a car accident in 1960, a tragic accident that also killed Thornburgh's wife, Ginny Hooton. The accident left Peter Thornburgh, then just 4 months of age, with a significant brain injury that caused physical and intellectual disabilities. Governor Thornburgh is quoted as saying that the accident ``made him think about what he could do with his life to contribute to the world.''

As Attorney General in Bush Administration, Dick Thornburgh helped to shepherd the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, through Congress during a most critical period in 1989. On

June 21, 1989, then Attorney General Thornburgh affirmed to the disability community and the Nation the Bush administration's intent to support the passage of the ADA and to sign the legislation when Congress passed the bill.

When the ADA passed Congress, Attorney General Thornburgh said that the day was ``one of emancipation, not just for the millions of Americans with disabilities who will directly benefit from this Act, but even more so for the rest of us now free to benefit from the contributions which those with a disability can make to our economy, our communities and our own well-being.''

Walter Cohen, who served as both Pennsylvania's secretary of public welfare and attorney general, stated that Governor Thornburgh was responsible for Pennsylvania creating home and community based services for people with disabilities and for ordering the closure of the Pennhurst State School and Hospital, which had been found to be housing hundreds of people with developmental and intellectual disabilities in squalor.

Mr. President, for many Governor Thornburgh is known for his decades of public service to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and to the Federal Government. He is deserving of this recognition, and the people of Pennsylvania owe him their deepest gratitude for his service. But any discussion of Governor Thornburgh's service would be incomplete if we did not pause to note that because of his efforts, in part, the lives of people with disabilities have been dramatically improved. Our built environment and transportation system have been made available to all people. It is now understood that every child, no matter their disability, has the right to a quality, public education. People with disabilities, rather than living in institutions, are now free to grow up and flourish in the community and setting of their choice.

These opportunities may be taken for granted now, but they were hard fought gains achieved through the sweat and tears of the disability community and those who fought alongside them every step of the way. Dick Thornburgh was one of the greatest of these champions. His public service to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is worthy of commendation. We extend condolences to Dick's wife, Ginny, his sons, John, David, Peter and William, and to his grandchildren and great grandchildren.

Madam President, I have great respect for my colleague from South Carolina. We are going to serve together on the Aging Committee, leading the committee.

I oppose this amendment for some basic reasons. No. 1 is he cited the number of deaths in long-term care facilities across the country. More than 150,000 people are dead in long-term care. The last administration didn't even count those deaths until May of 2020, despite efforts by Members of this body to urge the administration to do that.

They never had a plan. They didn't help the States. This is an effort, an ongoing effort, to blame States when the Federal Government dropped the ball when it came to long-term care.

I think we can do better than that. We should be helping nursing homes with the resources they need, like resources for cohorting where you can separate a resident with COVID-19 from those who don't have it.

We should be providing money for strike teams in ways to help nursing homes. Let's reduce the deaths instead of pointing fingers.

Madam President, it is good to see you in that Chair, and I am grateful for this opportunity.

I just wanted to raise a couple of issues that are relevant to the budget resolution that we are going to be working on over the next few days and beyond. There are so many issues to highlight. I will only mention two issues--two big issues--but I think, most generally, when I consider what we should do, I think it is my belief that we need a substantial, robust bill to meet the moment that we are in. That means dealing with the pandemic effectively and putting the virus behind us by accelerating vaccinations, making sure that we are taking every step possible to open our schools--to reopen schools, I should say, in some cases.

Thirdly, to make sure we are helping those who are vulnerable, whether they are folks without a job or folks who are hungry or their families are hungry--so many other traumas that have been heaped upon our families. There is a lot to do, and that requires a substantial investment, not a limited investment.

I will just mention two issues today. One is home and community-based services, and the other is childcare and a particular tax credit that is relevant.

Home and community-based services, as many people know, have a huge impact on both older citizens--seniors throughout the country--as well as people with disabilities and even has an impact upon children. I will focus most of the attention, for purposes of today, on the impact on seniors and people with disabilities.

If there is ever a time when a care setting that is in the home or in a community was more beneficial to a senior, to a person with a disability--if there is ever a time, it is now. We know that if someone is living in a congregate setting, they are more likely to get the virus. And we know the horrific numbers. Just about 40 percent of the deaths that have occurred because of the pandemic in the United States have occurred in long-term care settings. It is, as of right now, at last count, approaching 150,000 Americans who lost their lives from the virus who were in long-term care settings.

I think a lot of seniors--a lot of family members would prefer, often, that their loved one is getting care in a home or in a community setting. The same is true, of course, for people with disabilities.

We have a chance in this legislation to finally make an investment in home

and community-based services. Do those services exist right now? They do. How do they exist? Pretty much in the United States by way of a waiver, so it is not the standard policy; it is done by waiver.

We want to make sure that it is more of a standard feature, really, a choice that people have to get the care in the community or in the setting that they want. It is critically important that we have in the reconciliation instructions a commitment to home and community-based services. We have that now, and we want to make sure it remains in the bill in final form.

The other benefit or, I should say, the other priority here is not simply those receiving the care in home and community-based settings; it is those providing the care, those heroic frontline workers who often are not talked about enough who provide this care. Most of the care provided in these settings are provided by low-income women of color who disproportionately make up the workforce and often are making about $12 an hour. They should have a decent wage. They should have benefits, like sick and family medical leave, and they should have access to PPE protection so that they have the protection they need to do their job and to care for those individuals.

I see the distinguished majority leader.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I will continue with the brief discussion about home and community-based services.

It is so critical, as I mentioned earlier, to have these services available for seniors and for people with disabilities, and it is also relevant in the life of a child. We know--and as the Presiding Officer knows well in her efforts to provide these services to those in the disability community and among seniors--that it is important to children as well. Medicaid home and community-based services provide over $4 billion right now in support so that children can receive therapy and other necessary services to participate in school, and as I mentioned earlier, we know the impact upon seniors and people with disabilities. So that is the reason we are emphasizing, among many reasons, the investment in this bill for home and community-based services in the context of the pandemic and the devastation of the virus and more broadly.

The second issue I will raise--I know we are short on time--is an issue that I mentioned earlier. In addition to home and community-based services, this is an issue that relates to the family's ability to pay for childcare. So it affects the parents as well as the children. It is the child and dependent care tax credit. Obviously, it is an existing tax credit, a credit that parents have been able to rely on, but it is nowhere near robust enough to make it possible for more parents to afford childcare.

Here is the reality when it comes to what happens in the midst of this pandemic: We know that families have many reasons they can't make ends meet, but, also, many families have members of their families who want to get back to work. We are told that about 20 percent of working adults say the reason they are not working is that COVID-19 has disrupted their childcare arrangements. So it is both a childcare access and affordability question.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics tells us that women accounted for all jobs lost in December of 2020--not most jobs, not some jobs. All jobs lost in the United States were among women. Women lost 156,000 jobs. Their labor force participation rate is at its lowest point in a third of a century. One of the big reasons is childcare. We need to expand the child and dependent care tax credit to give parents the ability to recoup thousands--not hundreds but thousands--of dollars in childcare expenses.

That is what my legislation will do. That is what the new administration wants to do, and that is what we should do in this next COVID bill, and there are a lot of reasons for it.

I will end with this. Last year, the National Academy of Sciences released a roadmap to reduce child poverty. We have heard of the good provisions in this legislation on the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit and of the substantial impacts they have had on lowering child poverty--one estimate, by half.

Also contributing to this and to lower child poverty even more would be to enhance the child and dependent care tax credit. Here are the numbers: 9.2, 9.2, and 518. What do I mean? The National Academy of Sciences says that, if you have a robust child and dependent care tax credit, you can reduce child poverty by 9.2 percent. Guess what happens to wages. There are raised aggregate earnings across the country also by 9.2, but it just happens to be billions--$9.2 billion. Then the 518 refers to the jobs--increased net employment by more than 518,000 jobs according to the National Academy of Sciences.

So, among the many, many things we are doing in this bill, we need to invest in home and community-based services and also invest in a much more robust child and dependent care tax credit.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise tonight to defend the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania--to defend the more than 6.9 million voters who voted in this election--and to condemn, in the strongest possible terms, this attempt to disenfranchise the voters of Pennsylvania based upon a lie, a falsehood. That same lie sowed the seeds of today's violence and today's lawlessness here in the Capitol.

One of my constituents, Susan, from Lehigh Valley--the community of our State where Senator Toomey lives--recently wrote to my office and, perhaps, said it best:

We cannot allow ANYBODY to overturn the legal votes of the

citizens of Pennsylvania. This would be the ultimate

destruction of our democracy.

Susan had it right. We cannot allow ``ANYBODY''--and she put that word in all caps--to overturn the legal votes of the people of our State.

Let me address the allegation regarding the Pennsylvania Constitution and the general assembly and somehow that the general assembly didn't have the authority to enact ``no excuse mail-in voting''--that process--for the people of our State.

First, the law in question, Act 77, was passed in 2019 and was implemented without any serious question as to its constitutionality. The law was passed by a Republican-controlled general assembly, house and senate. It was only after the 2020 election, when it became clear that President-Elect Joe Biden won Pennsylvania by a little more than 80,000 votes, that some Republican politicians in our State decided to challenge the constitutionality of the law.

Second, Act 77 is plainly constitutional. My colleagues allege that the State constitution requires in-person voting except under limited circumstances. This is not true. While Pennsylvania lays out specific situations in which absentee voting is required, there is no in-person requirement in our State constitution. The constitution sets a floor, not a ceiling, for this type of voting.

Third, apart from the argument made by my colleague, there is bipartisan agreement across our State--at the local, State, and Federal levels--that our election was fair, secure, and lawful. On Monday, my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Toomey, wrote in an op-ed: ``The evidence is overwhelming that Joe Biden won this election.''

There is simply no evidence to justify the outrageous claims of widespread voter fraud or election irregularities that have been suggested by those seeking to overturn the election. There have been 60 cases in court after court, all throughout our State and throughout the country, including in the Supreme Court, that have dealt with this bizarre argument that we know is based upon that lie.

In one court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Judge Bibas, appointed by President Trump, wrote:

The campaign's claims have no merit. The United States has

free and fair elections, which are the lifeblood of our

democracy. Charges require specific allegations and then

proof. We have neither here.

So said Judge Bibas.

Finally, a word about those election officials who did such work. These election officials all across our State--Republicans and Democrats from red counties and blue counties--did their jobs. They are patriots, and these objections are an attack on these Pennsylvania public servants. I will give you one example from Republican Commissioner Al Schmidt, of Philadelphia.

He wrote:

There really should not be a disagreement, regardless of

party affiliation, when we're talking about counting votes .

. . by eligible voters. It is not a very controversial thing

or, at least, it shouldn't be.

After election day, Commissioner Al Schmidt, his family, and his colleagues were subjected to death threats simply because he was trying to do his job with integrity. It calls to mind that great line from ``America the Beautiful": ``O beautiful for patriot dream, That sees beyond the years.''

These election officials, like so many of our patriots--and we heard from Senator Duckworth tonight, a real patriot--did their jobs. Let's support these patriots. Vote against this objection

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise this evening to talk about judicial nominations and, in my view, the state of play, where we are. I want to highlight some of the very real impacts these nominations have on Americans across the board.

We have had a number of opportunities this year to come together and have agreement on some judicial nominations, but, frankly, this year-- the last several years--this issue has been the subject of conflict and sometimes rancor and division on the Senate floor and in the committee, the committee of jurisdiction, the Judiciary Committee.

I have raised concerns about the willingness of Senate Republicans to dismantle longstanding Senate rules but also Senate norms, all in a rush to pack the bench with nominees who are often both ideological and also, in some cases--not in all but in some cases--both too ideological and often unqualified.

Early this afternoon, the Senate voted to confirm Daniel Aaron Bress to a Ninth Circuit seat in California. I will talk about his nomination just by way of example, not by way of argument before a confirmation vote because that has passed.

I think his nomination and confirmation are another example of the decline of the Senate's once-proud traditions relating to judicial nominations.

He was opposed by both of his home State Senators. Both Senator Feinstein and Senator Harris did not return a blue slip for Daniel Aaron Bress.

The blue slip, as many people know, is literally a single piece of paper where Senators sign their name and then check off whether they support or oppose, as a way to have consensus between Senators from their home State, and it has always been accorded respect and deference in this Chamber, but that has all changed now.

In this case, you had a California nomination--I will get to that part of it in a moment--where, as I said, both Senators did not return blue slips. In this case, in particular, I think it is particularly offensive because Senator Feinstein is the ranking member of the committee.

For those who don't pay attention to all this terminology, ``ranking member'' is the top person in one party who is not the chairman or chairwoman, as the case may be.

So as the top Democrat, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, her opposition to Judge Bress should be an important factor in his nomination and confirmation.

Prior to this administration, the Judiciary Committee had never held a hearing for a nominee from the ranking member's home State without his or her support. Again, that has all changed just recently.

Prior rules and norms have not stopped Republicans in the Senate from pushing extreme and sometimes corporate nominees through this process, especially at the circuit court level.

In a recent press release, Senator Feinstein and Senator Harris explained that they opposed Judge Bress in part because he had so few connections to California. He lived in California for only 1 year since graduating from high school, he has not voted in California in an election for over a decade, and the California bar lists him as a Washington, DC, attorney.

I mention that because that should be relevant. When a home State Senator--in this case, two home State Senators, one of whom is the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee--I think in that case there should be deference paid to that kind of concern that is raised. After all, they both represent their State.

As I mentioned earlier, the blue slip process is predicated on the idea that home State Senators are more familiar than anyone else with their State's legal community. I think that goes without saying. They serve an important role in nominating individuals to serve and represent the State.

Judge Bress is an example of why the blue slip process is so important. He is not part of the California legal community. Despite objections of the Senators, he will now sit on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and decide cases for a State with over 39 million residents at last count.

Without blue slips, what would prevent a California judge from being nominated to a court in another State? What would happen if you had someone from a different State, who had very little ties to a State, be nominated and confirmed, for example, to serve in a State like Pennsylvania? It doesn't make a lot of sense to most people. It is a norm that should not be violated.

His nomination illustrates how the blue slip process has been eviscerated, especially for the circuit courts, which is something that I had some firsthand experience with. I did not return a blue slip on one nominee who was confirmed, and in the second case, there was a hearing scheduled over my objections by way of not returning a blue slip.

That experience that I had as a Senator whose blue slip and the deference that should be paid as part of that blue slip process--that circumstance in my case is at variance with my experience for district court judges.

Senator Toomey and I--my colleague from Pennsylvania--have worked together to jointly recommend experienced, consensus nominees for the Federal district courts in Pennsylvania. We have three districts--the Eastern District, the Middle District, and the Western District.

Unfortunately, this bipartisan district court process has become the exception, not the rule. It used to pertain here in the Senate, where every State had some kind of process by which nominees were presented for confirmation by their home State Senators, and the White House--the administration--in every case would pay deference to that.

That is exceedingly rare today. I am thankful we have maintained it so far in Pennsylvania with regard to the work Senator Toomey and I do together and our staffs do together to reach consensus. It doesn't always work, by the way, but usually no one hears about the ones who don't work out because we keep that to ourselves and move on to the next person and see if we can't reach consensus. I appreciate that. I think we are either at 19 or 20 judges confirmed since 2011, working together, and I hope we can maintain that so that at least--at least-- the blue slip process can be respected for district court nominees.

I think people who elect us in our home States expect that. They expect us to work together and to try to reach consensus where we can. Sometimes it is not possible, but they do expect us to do that. If there is an expectation of consensus and bipartisan cooperation

that adheres to or is expected of Senators, then there ought to be institutional support for that here in the Senate and by the administration. As I mentioned, that is not the case today, at least as it relates to the appeals court, the circuit courts around the country.

This has relevance, of course, not just to process and norms and traditions; that is in and of itself important. It is of even greater significance when you consider the issues these courts will deal with.

Just today, for example, there was oral argument before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Texas v. United States case--a monumental case that has the potential to cause millions of Americans to lose coverage. We know that because we know that since the Affordable Care Act was passed, more than 20 million people have gained coverage, the larger share of that being people who gained coverage through the expansion of Medicaid.

If that case were to be successful--a case brought by Republican attorneys general from around the country and then later opposed by Democratic attorneys general--if that case is successful, as it was at the district court level, 20 million people stand to lose their coverage, and a much larger number--depending on which number is on the record currently, but at least 150 million-plus Americans have protections today because of the Affordable Care Act, like the protection if you have a preexisting condition protection.

Under the old system, the old rules, the old law, you could be denied treatment or coverage because you have a preexisting condition. That was happening routinely. That is no longer the law today. The law today is that if you have a preexisting condition, you can still get coverage. As I said, that would be at risk for something north of 150 million Americans. Some of the data tells us the numbers are equally substantial when it comes to different parts of the law and those who are adversely or potentially adversely affected.

If you had to step back and summarize where we have been in the last more than--just about 2\1/2\ years now since the Trump administration came into office, working with House Republicans and Senate Republicans, you have had a campaign--really a constant campaign of what I would argue is about three things, and maybe not only three but at least three: ripping away coverage; decimating the Medicaid Program or at least attempting to over and over again; and thirdly, sabotage-- sabotage mostly by the administration itself but also supported by Republicans here in the Congress. That sabotage has been, unfortunately, successful.

As of January, for example, the Gallup organization released data that said the number of Americans--I am reading from the first line of a news story from the publication Vox. The headline is ``Under Trump, the number of uninsured Americans has gone up by 7 million.'' The sub- headline is ``Even in a strong economy, Americans are losing their health coverage.'' This is an article written by Sarah Kliff--someone who spends a lot of time writing about and analyzing healthcare as an issue. It is dated January 23, 2019. I will read just the first two sentences: ``The number of Americans without health insurance has increased by 7 million since President Donald Trump took office, new Gallup data released Wednesday shows.'' Again, this is a January 2019 story. It goes on from there to say: ``The country's uninsured rate has steadily ticked upward since 2016, rising from a low of 10.9 percent in late 2016 to 13.7 percent--a four-year high.''

So at the end of 2016, at the beginning of the Trump administration, the uninsured rate was 10.9. At the end or the latter part of 2018, going into 2019, it stood at 13.7. So Gallup tells us that 7 million more people do not have healthcare who had it when the President started his administration.

A number of organizations have catalogued recent analyses of the potential threats that could impact communities if this Texas v. United States case were successful. I will mention again for the record that the litigants--the ones who were bringing the case, these Republican attorneys general--prevailed at the district court level. Now it is on appeal at the circuit court, and, in my judgment, it is probably more likely than not that they will prevail at that level too. Then, of course, the only option would be the Supreme Court, and I don't have a lot of confidence that this Supreme Court would rule against that case, which would result in chaos. That is a terrible understatement for what would happen when 20 million people potentially lose their coverage and tens and tens of millions more lose the protections they enjoy now, especially those against the denial of treatment or coverage because that individual has a preexisting condition.

Here are the numbers, just to remind folks. Everyone has heard the number nationally. One hundred thirty-three million Americans, roughly, have a preexisting condition. In my home State of Pennsylvania, that number is a little more than 5.3 million people. Those numbers are terribly high, but I think the one really making an impression on me and I hope on others--especially those in Pennsylvania--is the number of children in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who have a preexisting condition. Six hundred forty-two thousand seven hundred Pennsylvania children have a preexisting condition--642,700. No action by the U.S. Congress, by the administration, or by a court should ever result in any child being denied coverage or treatment because of a preexisting condition--any child but let alone numbers that are so high and so offensive to even consider that number of children or any portion of that number could be denied coverage.

The only number I will emphasize tonight is 642,700 Pennsylvania children with a preexisting condition. I won't go through all the numbers because I know we are here late tonight, but another number that jumps out at me--and this number comes from a document published by Protect Our Care telling us in a publication today that when you consider the doughnut hole coverage, meaning that the Affordable Care Act began to fill the coverage gap when older Americans were paying for prescription drugs and often paying exorbitant prices for prescription drugs--the Affordable Care Act began to chip away at that number, so much and in such a substantial fashion that the average senior, since the Affordable Care Act was passed--and this is the period of time between 2010 and 2016--that seniors gained $2,272 on average, almost $2,300 per senior to help them with their prescription drug costs by helping to fill that so-called doughnut hole, which is a very benign way to talk about a terrible coverage gap that burdens a lot of older Americans. In Pennsylvania, that number is lower, but it was still more than $1,100 per person.

All of that will be at risk if this case is successful. Just like the protections for preexisting conditions are at risk, the support that has been available up until the recent past for prescription drug coverage for seniors--that support potentially could go away completely. So seniors will again potentially be footing the bill if this lawsuit is successful.

Two more, just for the record. Access to treatment would be in jeopardy for some 800,000 people with opioid use disorder issues. We know there are a huge number of Americans who have a substance use disorder issue, often an addiction. A subcategory of that--probably the biggest subcategory--are those with an opioid addiction. That has hurt families of all kinds--rich and poor, north and south, no matter where you live--east, west, rural, urban, suburban. It knows no bounds.

A lot of that support has come from the support for quality treatment that folks need to lift themselves out of the grip of an addiction. A lot of that support comes from Medicaid expansion. Whether it is the repeal bills that were promoted on the Senate floor over and over again or whether it is the lawsuit that could have as devastating of an impact on healthcare as any repeal bill would, no matter where you turn, in terms of Republican healthcare bills and this lawsuit, you can see the adverse impact on Medicaid expansion.

Virtually every one of them not only wants to cut Medicaid expansion, in most of the Republican bills, they want to eliminate it over time-- completely eliminate Medicaid expansion. Somehow it was wrong. I have to ask why.

Why was it wrong that millions of people got their healthcare through an expansion of Medicaid? Why would anyone ever doubt that someone next to you who doesn't have coverage, first and foremost, and might have an opioid addiction problem is getting coverage, and because they have insurance coverage, they can get treatment for that terrible scourge our country is going to be dealing with for decades--why is that the wrong thing to do? How would taking that coverage away from someone with an opioid problem advance the interests of the American people? The answer is, it wouldn't. The answer is, it would set back the efforts to deal with a whole host of folks out there who are getting treatment today solely, completely, because of Medicaid expansion.

The last thing I will mention is our rural areas. I represent a State that has 67 counties, and 48 of them are rural. A lot of the rural hospitals in those communities are already teetering on the edge of collapse and have been for years--not just the last several years but for many years.

One of the fastest ways to ensure that more rural hospitals would close and collapse is to cut Medicaid or to take away Medicaid expansion. That has an adverse impact, the likes of which we can't even begin to calculate because folks in rural Pennsylvania will lose coverage if you decimate Medicaid or you take away Medicaid expansion, but that doesn't end there.

A lot of folks in those communities are getting treatment for an addiction issue or something related. They will be adversely impacted; their families will; their communities will, but it doesn't stop there in a rural area.

In a lot of these rural areas in my home State--and it is true all across the country--the biggest employer, or at least the second or third biggest employer, is often a hospital. In my State, there are probably 25 counties where the top employer in those 48 rural counties--about half of them, roughly--the No. 1 and No. 2 employer is a hospital. So cutting Medicaid or eliminating Medicaid expansion or sabotaging the health insurance markets or taking away the coverage of the Affordable Care Act has healthcare consequences, has opioid addiction treatment consequences, and of course has a job consequence as well. If you cut Medicaid in a lot of rural areas, you are going to lose a lot of jobs. It is as simple as that, as devastating as it is.

So we have a long way to go to make progress on healthcare. I hope--I hope--my Republican friends will come together with us and work on lowering the cost of healthcare and lowering the cost of prescription drugs, but they don't seem to be that interested in that. Some are, intermittently, once in a while, but they don't seem to be interested because there is an obsession in the Senate, on the Republican side, with decimating the Medicaid Program, ending Medicaid expansion, and completely wiping out all the gains of the Affordable Care Act.

That would be bad enough, but it is doubly worse or it is doubly insulting, I should say, when there is no plan for replacement. So what if a court of law, what if a Federal court in the Fifth Circuit, in the next couple of months, says the moving party here, the party that wants to declare the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional--declares the moving party is the prevailing party, that they win? Let's say it doesn't go to the Supreme Court, but even if it does, let's say it loses there. What happens then to those 20 million people who got coverage? What happens to the 150 million-plus who have coverage today, protections today, who did not have it before the Affordable Care Act? They were paying their premiums for years, if not decades. They had coverage for years, if not decades. Their children were maybe covered in their employer-sponsored plan, but in many cases--maybe not in every case--they didn't have much protection from preexisting conditions. They didn't have protections against lifetime limits or caps on the treatment you can get in a year or over a lifetime.

We had the bizarre and insulting and degrading experience, where women were discriminated against by the insurance companies because they were women. Being a woman was actually, in a sense, a preexisting condition. That made no sense. Are we going to go back to those days because a group of attorneys general wanted to change the law, and they couldn't prevail on the Senate floor, or they couldn't prevail over time in the House, or by way of what the administration would do, so they went into court, and they are going to wipe out coverage for tens and tens of millions of Americans? Is that a good thing for America? I don't think so. I think that sends everything in the wrong direction.

Unfortunately, that is not just theory. Some of it is already happening. As I said before, Gallup tells us that 7 million fewer people have healthcare today, or at least as of January, than did two Januarys before that. So we have a long way to go to make progress on healthcare, but we are not going to make much progress around here if we have a continual fight. I hope some will agree to set aside the fight about repeal and lawsuits taking away coverage. Let's work together to lower costs, and let's work together to lower the costs of prescription drugs, in particular, because I have to answer to a lot of families.

One of them is Matt Stefanelli, a young man we just spoke to today talking about his children. Matt's son has type 1 diabetes. We are from the same home county. He is worried not only about his own healthcare, but he is worried about his son's healthcare. We have an answer, and the answer is to respond to families like Matt's.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise this evening to speak about the horrific humanitarian crisis at our southern border--the inhumane and truly despicable conditions under which migrants, including children, are being held by the U.S. Government. Children are being held for prolonged periods of time in facilities that are woefully inadequate, and that is an understatement.

On my left is a chart with some pictures. I want to walk through each of these pictures to talk about these children by name. Since September of 2018, these children have died while in United States Government custody.

I will start at the lower right-hand corner of the chart as you are facing the chart: Carlos Hernandez Vasquez, 16 years old; up here on the left top of the chart, Wilmer Josue Ramirez Vasquez, 2 years old; Darlyn Cristabel Cordova-Valle, age 10; Juan de Leon Gutierrez, right here on the other side of the chart, just 16 years old; Jakelin Caal Maquin--many know her name from the time when she passed away--just 7 years old; and finally, Felipe Gomez Alonzo, just 8 years old.

These six deaths occurred in the span of less than 1 year and are the first deaths in at least a decade. Mourning their deaths is not enough. I think we can at least agree on that. As much as anyone can mourn their deaths, that is not enough. We must act in light of this terrible darkness that these children experienced and that their families are living with and that our country is experiencing as well.

In recent weeks we have heard some of the reporting. There have been reports of children held without adequate medical attention, without food or water or sanitation.

Just by way of one searing example, Warren Binford, a law professor at Willamette University, who spoke with children at the Texas facility, said:

Basically, what we saw are dirty children who are

malnourished, who are severely neglected. They are being kept

in inhumane conditions. They are essentially being

warehoused, as many as 300 children in a cell, with almost no

adult supervision.

This is a lawyer who is trained to understand and to explain these kinds of conditions. This isn't some casual observer. This is an expert in her field who is telling us this. She is not a Member of Congress. She is not an employee of the U.S. Government. She is a lawyer who saw this with her own

eyes--children who are malnourished, neglected, living in inhumane conditions, warehoused, with 300 children in a cell with no adult supervision.

This same law professor reported witnessing a 14-year-old--a 14-year- old--caring for a 2-year-old without a diaper, lack of medical care, with flu outbreaks and lice infestation.

Law Professor Binford said:

It's the worst conditions I have ever witnessed in several

years of doing these inspections.

That is what a trained professional is telling us about what is happening in these conditions.

A Senate colleague of mine talked about going into a facility where children were housed. This is a Senator with a lot of experience in the Senate. He said, usually when you walk through any kind of facility or any kind of environment in the United States of America where children are, you can hear them laughing and playing and having fun--that beautiful noise of children playing. He said you couldn't hear any of it. He talked about the eerie and disturbing quiet in that place. There was no noise, no laughing, no happiness, I guess, is probably the best way he described it.

Then this one Senator talked about making eye contact with a child. As soon as he or she made eye contact, the child would turn away.

I am sure we have other examples from colleagues here and in the House and within our government, but when a law professor who has been in a lot of these circumstances tells us this, we should listen, and we should act.

Another lawyer reported speaking with young mothers and children--all of whom were claiming asylum at a Texas facility. The mother reported a lack of proper medical care, or clean clothes, or sufficient cups or baby bottles, forcing reuse and sharing of those same cups and bottles, as well as mothers wiping their children's runny noses or vomit with their own clothes because they have nothing else--not even a paper towel--to clean with when they are experiencing these conditions. This particular lawyer was quoted in the Texas Tribune, just in case anyone wants a source.

These reports of overcrowding and lack of medical care, sanitation problems, and lack of food or water are an abomination. This is not America. It is not the America we grew up with. It is not the America we tell the world we are. We have told the world for generations that we care about each other; that we welcome people to our shores and try to treat them fairly. We can't say that when we have these kinds of insults.

Just imagine the fear a child experiences in these circumstances--the fear that comes from being alone, the fear of not having their mother or their father or some loved one nearby, in many circumstances. Some, I guess, might have an older sibling with them, but just imagine how frightened they are. Then, to compound that, they don't have basic necessities. I can't even imagine the fear.

There is a great hymn in my faith that talks about being a servant. I will not go through all the lyrics. The song is named ``The Servant Song.'' I will take the sacredness out of it for purposes of where we are speaking today. One of the lines of ``The Servant Song'' says: ``I will hold the . . . light for you in the night time of your fear.''

I can't imagine any other circumstance that anyone here could describe to better fit that description--in the night time of the fear of children who may have survived, but others, as this chart depicts, lost their lives because of failures of our government. A 2-year-old, a 10-year-old, a 7-year-old, a 16-year-old, an 8-year-old, and another 16-year-old who were in government custody of the United States of America lost their lives. I can't even begin to imagine that fear.

We all have to ask ourselves a lot of questions, but one question we have to ask ourselves in both Houses of Congress and the administration is, Will this government be there in the night time of the fear experienced by these children or not? It is readily apparent, from all the reporting month after month, that we are in no way meeting that test for too many children. Maybe some are in better conditions, but there are a lot of children--I don't even know the number. I hope it is only in the hundreds, but many people believe it is a lot more than that. There may be thousands or more who are in the night time of their fear.

Our government is not only part of creating the fear, we are doing next to nothing to alleviate it. We should ask ourselves, will we be there for them in the night time of their fear?

The administration's response to all of the reporting of this horror has been an insult to the United States of America. It is an insult to the taxpayers who send money to the government and say: Make sure that when a child comes to our borders, we treat them humanely; make sure the system works. It is an insult to our values, of course.

It is an insult to the proclamations we make as Americans to the world that we are a beacon of light for the world in so many ways. Thank goodness we are in some other facets of our government and of course the lives of our people. On this issue, we are bringing darkness not only to the lives of those children, but we are bringing darkness to the world.

We are less safe as a country when this happens. We empower people around the world--very bad actors around the world--who have been perpetuating this narrative for generations that America allows this to happen. When you do that, you empower the bad guys to recruit and to marshal their forces against you. When you treat children this way, who then lose their lives in government custody, we are less safe. It hurts our national security. It doesn't just undermine our values. It is not just immoral. It makes us less safe. It is a national security threat as much as it is an insult to our values or at least the values we claim to have as a government in the executive and legislative branches.

This administration has sought to increase family detention. They sought to relax the standards under which children are held. The administration recently canceled English classes, recreational programs, and legal aid for unaccompanied minors at shelters across the country.

Recently, an attorney for the Department of Justice argued that the government should not be required to give a detained migrant child--or in this case children--toothbrushes, or soap, or towels, or showers, and probably goes on from there. It is hard to comprehend how insulting that is to our values; how cruel and inhumane that is. If our government can't provide that to a child, how can we call ourselves a government? How can we say we have the values that we claim to have as a government? This person was a lawyer for the U.S. Government from the U.S. Department of Justice. A lawyer said that, not some low-level employee of some department in the Federal Government. A lawyer in a courtroom said our government shouldn't have to provide toothbrushes or soap or towels.

We should not be relaxing standards when, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Department of Homeland Security facilities already don't meet the basic standards for care of children in residential settings. Moreover, the Academy of Pediatrics stated that detention itself, even for short periods of time, can cause psychological trauma and induce long-term mental health risks for children.

I made this point to the administration months ago; that when you are setting up your protocols about how to deal with a child, please consult with the American Academy of Pediatrics--which is probably the leading organization in the whole country--about how best to care for a child and what not to do. I think we should listen to them, and I hope the administration would not only be listening to the American Academy of Pediatrics but would be incorporating their expertise and protocols.

Conditions for migrant adults are also completely unacceptable and an insult to our values. Last month, the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General issued a report. This isn't just a routine report. I will read the headline: ``Management Alert--DHS Needs to Address Dangerous Overcrowding Among Single Adults at El Paso Del Norte Processing Center.'' This is a management alert sent by one part of the government--not just the executive branch but one department to the other--the inspector

general to the management of the Department of Homeland Security. That is how bad it is.

I will read just one line on page 9 of the report:

Recommendations.

We recommend the Acting Secretary of DHS:

1. Take immediate steps to alleviate the overcrowding at

the El Paso Del Norte Bridge Processing Center.

They didn't say work on it for a couple of months and try to get something done. Their own inspector general is saying take immediate steps.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have at least the body of this report, if not the attachment, printed in the Record.

This report details dangerous overcrowding for a prolonged basis at this detention center and the dangers it creates. According to the report, a facility with maximum capacity of 125 detainees is holding approximately 900. Some migrants were held in standing-room- only-conditions for days or weeks with limited access to showers or clean clothing. Migrants, many of whom are asylum seekers, were observed standing on toilets themselves to make room and gain breathing space. These conditions not only violate Custom and Border Patrol's transport, escort, detention, and search standards but are an affront to our values as a nation. Asylum seekers who have fled violence and suffered through an arduous journey should not be subjected to unhealthy, unsanitary, unsafe conditions under any circumstances.

Asylum seekers are coming to our shores because of violence in their home countries. Everyone knows this. This isn't a theory; it is fact. Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador rank in the top 10 countries in the world for homicide. Why do we think they are coming? Would any one of us journey hundreds or thousands of miles? I don't think so.

According to a report issued from Doctors Without Borders in 2017, Northern Triangle countries--the countries I just mentioned--are experiencing ``violent displacement, persecution, sexual violence, and forced repatriation akin to the conditions found in the deadliest armed conflicts in the world today.'' That is not some Member of Congress just talking.

For asylum seekers, the decision to move is not a choice; it is a necessity. The journey can further subject them to violence, danger, and other abuses along the way.

Once they arrive at our shores, it is critical that they are treated with compassion and human dignity and receive a fair opportunity to present their claims.

That is the America that we believe in. That is the America we were taught to believe that we are--a nation that respects human life, human values, and gives people a fair chance when they present themselves for asylum.

The only good news that we can report tonight is that the Senate passed a bill to provide nearly $4.6 billion in humanitarian aid, including $2.88 billion to the Office of Refugee Resettlement to care for migrant children and to help minimize the time they are held in Federal facilities, in Federal custody. The House also passed a bill, which I support. We must quickly conference these bills to provide the needed resources while we also ensure there are protections for migrants and greater accountability and transparency from DHS to ensure the funds are appropriately spent.

The faster we get this done, the better, and maybe we can reduce the likelihood that six more children will die in the next couple of months in the custody of the U.S. Government.

I end with this note: I talked about what we are as a nation and what we believe that we should be and the standard we are not meeting now. We must be a nation that respects people who come to our shores and treats them with a measure of human dignity and compassion and fairness.

What we must not be is a nation that refuses asylum seekers who flee persecution and violence from the murder capitals of the world. We must not be a nation that separates children from their families. We must not be a nation that gives migrants, including children, who are in squalid and inhumane conditions, no hope of getting out of that circumstance.

We are, indeed, when we are at our best, a nation of opportunity, a nation of immigrants, and, of course, a nation of laws. It is imperative that we fix our broken immigration system more broadly so that it, once again, reflects these American values.

As we work on a broad response to a broken immigration system, let us at least be there for those children in the nighttime of their fear-- No. 1, not to create that fear and, No. 2, not to perpetuate it for these children. At a minimum, we should make a pledge in our government to never have six deaths of children who are in the custody of the U.S. Government.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Connecticut for leading this discussion today on gun violence. We want to focus on one bill in particular, one piece of legislation, but I want to step back for a moment and talk about this issue more broadly in terms of what it means for the American people.

We are talking about a problem, the problem of gun violence, which is a uniquely American problem. No other country has this problem. No other country has the amount of mass shootings. I don't know the exact number,

but we have had so many that we know them by the name of the community. When we say Newtown, CT, or Sandy Hook Elementary School, when we talk about places like Columbine, or Parkland, you know what happened at those places because they have become so common. So this is a uniquely American problem that Americans have to solve. Some of those Americans, obviously, have to be Members of Congress.

You would never know there was this problem based upon the inaction by Congress, by the Senate, and, until recently, the House over many years.

The one question I have to ask is, are we going to surrender to this uniquely American problem--because the inaction by Congress over many years now would indicate to me that the answer to that question is yes; that a lot of Members of Congress, House and Senate, have concluded that there is absolutely nothing we can do to reduce even the likelihood of another mass shooting or reduce the likelihood of more and more gun violence.

So here we are. The House has passed background check legislation that, as Senator Murphy just outlined, is overwhelmingly popular with more than 90 percent of Americans who support it, and we are in day 113. It has been 113 days since the House passed it, and there is no action on the Senate floor. There hasn't even really been a debate of any kind here in the Senate on gun violence or what to do about it.

So consider that time frame and all the time that has gone by since. The one bill that dealt with this issue of gun violence that passed either House in probably 25 years is now 113 days from having any action in the Senate. So with no action on something as popular and as well-supported as that bill and on such an important issue as gun violence, I have to conclude that without any action here in the Senate, in this particular legislative graveyard, the Senate is surrendering to this problem. It is just letting this bill die in the Senate over time.

Among the many examples we could talk about, I will give you two examples from both ends of our State of Pennsylvania. In the city of Pittsburgh, we witnessed the deadly act of violence against the Jewish community. The worst act of violence against a Jewish community in American history was at the Tree of Life synagogue back in October, when a shooter opened fire on three congregations worshipping during Shabbat services. Three different congregations were worshipping at the same place. This deadly mass shooting--a targeted, cowardly, hateful attack on the Jewish community--resulted in the deaths of 11 innocent Pennsylvanians and injured 6 more, including 4 members of law enforcement. Eleven people were gone in a matter of minutes, and in this case they range in age from the ages of low fifties, I guess, to the oldest being 97 years old, if memory serves me.

While this attack was horrific for so many reasons, it is just one example of the ongoing and systemic problem of gun violence across our country. It is an epidemic. I will say it. It is a uniquely American problem, and we are acting as if there is no problem at all here in the Senate.

Just consider this. Through the month of April, nearly 400 individuals have been shot in the city of Philadelphia. In many cases, if that doesn't lead to death itself, it leads to grievous permanent injury.

Just this past weekend in Philadelphia, there were 19 shootings in one city--19 shootings in one weekend with 5 deaths and 28 others wounded. One of the shootings occurred in a public park during a graduation party. Six people were shot and one was killed. They were all under the age of 25.

Here is what the toll so far is this year. This year the gun-related death toll in Philadelphia is 152--in one city. Needless to say, the national statistics on this--the national numbers--are staggering, in addition to the numbers I cited from Philadelphia. Gun violence affects more than 100,000 people every year, impacting their lives year after year in numbers like that.

On February 27, as I mentioned, the House passed H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019--113 days ago--but the majority leader has refused to call this bipartisan bill to the floor of the Senate. Shouldn't we even debate it? Is that really where we are--that this uniquely American problem of gun violence is not even worthy of a debate? We are looking for a vote, obviously, but is it not even worthy of a debate and then a vote?

We know that there may not be the votes in the Senate to pass this, but we are not even going to debate something on such an important issue? This is a piece of legislation supported by more than 90 percent of the American people. If you don't want to be for it, just tell us in the debate and register your vote. At least we will have debated the one bill that passed the House in 25 years. We have this one opportunity on one bill, and it is not even worthy of a debate here in the Senate.

I am a proud original cosponsor of the Senate version of the bill, the Background Check Expansion Act, because it is a type of commonsense legislation that makes Americans safe from the horrors of gun violence. In fact, expanding background checks is supported by more than 90 percent of Americans because they know--we all know--that background checks make our community safer.

Since 1994, background checks have prevented more than 3.5 million gun sales to dangerous criminals and others prohibited from owning guns. Yet these background check bills haven't seen the light of day since H.R. 8 was passed in the House. I will say it again: 113 days ago. They were sent to this legislative graveyard. I have to ask my Republican colleagues: Why don't you ask the majority leader to schedule just one debate? It could be a limited debate. Then, let's have a vote up or down. I hope there may be a vote on some other measures, but at least let's debate and vote on a background check bill that passed the House of Representatives.

The time for talk about this issue and the time for lamenting the problem has long passed. We have to do something about it. That means debating and voting. That is what we are supposed to do here--debate big issues and vote. Vote how you want, but at least debate and vote on this issue, which will reduce the likelihood that we will see more and more tragedies like we have seen.

We are told that 100 people are shot and killed every day in the United States of America. One hundred people are shot and killed every day. We go not just days but weeks and months and now years without a single bill getting the kind of debate and vote that it should get and without a single bill passing.

At least let's get a start with this piece of legislation. Let's debate it and vote on it.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss one of the judicial nominations we are considering. We are on the floor this afternoon to discuss the nomination of Matthew J. Kacsmaryk to be a U.S. district judge for the Northern District of Texas.

We know that under the Senate rules we are now operating under, judicial nominees are receiving just 2 hours of what is called postcloture consideration, and for that time on the floor, we are considering a lifetime appointment to be on the Federal district court bench or to be a judge on one of the circuit courts. These are lifetime appointments, and to have just 2 hours on any nomination I don't think is enough time--I think a lot of Americans agree with me--but maybe even more so when you have a nominee whose views are, to be understated for a moment, troubling, views about judicial philosophy or a judicial philosophy and--a philosophy that I think a lot of Americans would find extreme.

In this case, the nomination of Mr. Kacsmaryk is a prime example of why these nominees for lifetime appointments warrant a longer time for review. Again, I think that is an understatement.

Even at a time when we are on a regular basis considering nominees who fall outside of the mainstream and who tend to fall in a place, in terms of legal philosophy, that a lot of Americans would find very concerning--even at a time when we have considered a lot of nominees I would consider outside the mainstream, Mr. Kacsmaryk's nomination is particularly troubling. I will use just two examples, briefly.

The first example is his hostility to women's access to safe, affordable, and FDA-approved contraception. So many Americans--I think long before the Affordable Care Act but certainly in light of the Affordable Care Act--consider access to contraception that is safe, affordable, and FDA-approved--well, I think most Americans would consider and should consider that part of a basic healthcare package. That is the way it ought to be. But I would hope that a judge would at least recognize that it is fundamental to women's healthcare. Unfortunately, I don't think this nominee does, and that in and of itself is troubling.

The second example--and these are only brief overviews in the interest of time--is Mr. Kacsmaryk has repeatedly disparaged and attacked the LGBTQ community. In a public comment in 2016 to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services and is known as CMS, Mr. Kacsmaryk argued that transgender individuals suffer from a ``psychological condition in need of care'' and suggested that being transgender was a ``delusion.'' I have to ask--a delusion? Where does he come up with that? I don't know where one comes up with that kind of analysis. It doesn't make sense to most Americans.

Prior to that, Mr. Kacsmaryk wrote an article about the Equality Act, which is bipartisan legislation that is before the Senate. The Equality Act would have the effect of--these are my words; this is not a full description of it--have the effect of catching up, in terms of the legal protections provided to Americans who happen to be gay or lesbian, bisexual, transgender--have the protections afforded to them catch up to those provided to other Americans. We finally made progress. More than 50 years ago now, we had the Civil Rights Act and other legislation over time that provided more and more protection over time to more Americans. Unfortunately, we don't have a similar measure of protections for Americans who happen to be LGBTQ.

It is literally the case today that in some States, if you are gay or lesbian, you could be married in one hour of the day or on one day and the next day or the next hour be fired, and that would be permissible under law. So there are protections for employment and for access to education and housing--the full

measure of American life. The Equality Act would ensure those protections. That is not law yet, and that is why we have to pass it by way of Federal law.

With that background, I want to go back to what I previously stated. Mr. Kacsmaryk wrote an article that suggested that the Equality Act, which I described, would ``weaponize'' the Obergefell decision. That was the landmark decision that allowed same-sex couples to marry. He said the Equality Act would weaponize that decision, while in this particular writing making reference to a ``long war ahead'' when discussing LGBTQ rights in a post-Obergefell America. So in America after the Obergefell decision, which allowed marriage equality and which made that part of our Federal law, thank goodness, after a long time--he believed that the Equality Act would be part of a ``long war ahead,'' when discussing that future in America. That doesn't make sense to me. I don't think it makes sense to a lot of Americans. I think most Americans believe that decision for marriage equality was an advancement where the circle of protection is growing, as it ought to. For too long, that circle was very small--until we had some breakthroughs over the last 50 years. Fortunately, marriage equality-- the right to marry, the right to spend the rest of your life with someone you love of the same sex--was finally enshrined into law by a Supreme Court decision. But this nominee seems to believe that the Equality Act would ``weaponize.'' I don't know where you come up with words like that--``weaponize,'' ``war.'' It just doesn't seem to fit in the America I think most people believe in.

As this is playing out, it just so happens--and this is offensive. I hope it wasn't intentional. I don't have any reason to believe it was intentional. But it just so happens that the majority has this particular nomination on the floor when we are talking about these concerns about LGBTQ Americans and a particular nominee or maybe more than one nominee--I am here to talk about just one. But this is all playing out this month in the midst of celebrating LGBTQ Pride Month. So that is particularly offensive.

Again, I will state for the record that I don't have evidence that it was intentional to consider someone with those views at this particular time, but it is nonetheless offensive because of the timing.

The LGBTQ community had to sacrifice so much for so long in their fight for equality and civil rights in the United States of America, and we have a lot more work to do. As I indicated, the Equality Act is not yet law. Even though it is slightly bipartisan so far, we need to grow that bipartisanship so we can get it passed here in the Senate.

I think LGBTQ Americans--frankly, all Americans--deserve better than a nominee who suggested that the Equality Act ``weaponizes'' the right to marry the ones they love. I think our country deserves a judge better than that, even if it is just for one particular Federal district court.

I also believe that Americans deserve a better nominee than Mr. Kacsmaryk--maybe especially on these issues that I have raised but generally, as well. They deserve a nominee who respects and will protect the rights of all Americans, especially those Americans who have been the subject of ongoing, continuous discrimination--in this case, LGBTQ Americans.

That discrimination has not abated or been ripped out by the roots because we have advancements like the right to marry or advancements in law. That discrimination continues. In fact, it is protected in some ways by the laws of some States, where you can fire someone simply because they are gay and do that with impunity.

The discrimination continues by way of hateful acts that people undertake, but also the discrimination continues by way of law, as well.

We should have judges in every district court, in every circuit court, in every court in the country--no matter what level of judicial office we are talking about--who will respect and protect every single American.

In this case, I think you have a nominee who is not just outside of the mainstream but way outside of the mainstream, and I think that is why--so far, at least--he has been the subject of bipartisan opposition, and that is pretty rare around here, as many know. He is too extreme for this appointment. I would hope that my colleagues would vote against him. I know we had one vote already.

I say all this as someone who has worked for a long time in a very bipartisan, collaborative way to appoint district court judges in Pennsylvania over and over. Those judges have had the support of Senator Toomey, as well as my support. A Democratic Senator and a Republican Senator have worked together on a number of appointments. We are getting close to 20 now, I think, since we have served together since 2011. I think we are at 19, if I haven't lost count. That means that we both have worked together to review, to scrutinize, and to decide whether to support a judge who might come from a Democratic nomination and might be supported by me and by my office, as well as a nominee supported by my colleague Senator Toomey. Over time, that means that Democratic judges, or someone nominated by a Democratic Senator and a Democratic White House a couple of years ago, and Republican nominees, nominated by a Republican Senator and a Republican White House, have been given consideration, review, and then confirmation.

I am someone who takes his responsibility seriously. I have a long and distinguished record of working in this process to make sure that we get Federal district court judges from different points of view nominated by both Senators of both parties who meet that test, not judges who just meet the test of competence but also meet the test of being within the mainstream. Again, this means a judge who will respect and protect every single American. I think that is not asking too much of any nominee, no matter what district court.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.