mr. casey: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. i ask consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: we're not in a quorum call. the senator is recognized.

mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to talk about an issue that i know is on the minds of many, many americans, especially folks who are in the middle class or struggling to get to the middle class. and that's the issue of child care. i think most of us in this chamber agree that every child born in this country has a light inside them. for some children that light will shine very brightly without a lot of help. they have innate abilities, they have circumstances they are born into where they don't need a lot of help from public policy or from programs or from legislation, but there are a lot of children who have a light inside them that can burn to the full measure of its potential if we do our job, and when i say our job, i mean the job of

elected officials. i think it's the job of every elected official at every level of government, and those that work with them, to do everything you can to make sure that light inside of every child burns as brightly as at least the full measure of his or her potential. we know just by way of one example in the context of child care, that affordable, high-quality child care enables parents to work so they can support their families and also quality affordable child care helps give children the early learning experiences they need to develop and succeed in school. when children learn more early in life, they will earn more much later in their lives. that connection between learning and earning isn't just a rhyme. all the research shows that there is a direct connection. and when that child learns at a

younger age because of early education and quality child care and so many other strategies, we're all better off. not only is that child better off, and his or her family, but we're all better off. we will have a higher-skilled workforce, we will have a more productive workforce, we will be able to grow and out compete any country in the world if we invest in early learning. unfortunately we know the challenges here. the cost of child care has increased by 25% in just the last decade, creating significant financial strains for those same middle-class families. according to data from child care aware in my home state of pennsylvania the average cost of full-time center based child care is about $1,560 for an

infant and about $8,712 for a 4-year-old. this is about 12% of annual income for married couples in pennsylvania and nearly 46% of annual income for a single parent -- 46%. that is not sustainable. that is not a number that anyone should be satisfied with. frankly, i'm not sure the 12% of annual income for a two-parent family is sustainable. we should get that number into the single digits. the bill i'll talk about in a moment seeks to do that. just this past week when we were all back in our states to be able to travel for last -- the better part of a week, i had the chance to get to six child care centers in cities across pennsylvania and spoke to more than 25 families who shared

their stories about their struggles and the struggle, of course, in this case was the struggle to afford high-quality child care. i was in philadelphia in potts town, gettysburg, verone, erie and redding, if you charted those cities on the map you would go from the furthest corner southeastern part of our state to the most northwestern corner of the state in erie. in communities below erie and to the northeast as well. so literally every corner of the state. and across those communities we hear a lot of the same challenges, a lot of similar stories. for example, one single mom in philadelphia told us recently the following, quote, and i think this is emably metric of what is happening in a lot of

communities. quote, i struggle every day to make ends meet. i'm not eligible for public assistance, i juggle my bills to make ends meet. i have to become very creative in making sure that i pay my mortgage, utilities and child care. then she goes on from there to say, then i decide if i can fai for anything in addition to that such as health care, food, necessities for my child and my home. i knew i would not be able to afford child care. luckily i have support of loved ones in my life whom support me when i fall are short. most do not have it this. and then this single mother goes on to say the following. all of my family and friends struggle to pay for child care because we are middle-class individuals that make too much money to qualify for child care assistance or any other programs, but we also don't make enough money to actually afford child care out of pocket.

oftentimes we have to choose a child care based off of a price and not based off of the quality of education they will provide our children at the child care facility. unquote. notice what she said at the end there. she's making a decision about the child care that she will provide her children based off only -- only one consideration, the price, not based upon the quality. and there in lies the problem that we've got to try to solve. if we have millions and millions of families, middle class or struggling to get to the middle class, making child care determinations based solely upon the cost, we're all in trouble over time. that is not what we should be doing. it doesn't mean the price won't be a challenge for some. it doesn't mean the price is irrelevant, but if they are not able to find quality child care

that is affordable, that child will be worse off over time, that community will be, and the rest of us will as well. we will not have that high-skilled workforce that we need. we will not be able to compete and win the battle across the world that we need to win, and that's the battle to create the highest-skilled workforce in the world and to maintain that advantage. when i was in gettysburg this past week, i heard from two parents who had adopted two children, one of whom has significant medical issues and has been in and out of the hospital. they've struggled toed find a child care center -- to find a child care center that was able to handle the behavioral and developmental needs of their children. the father, who is a small business owner, had to make an adjustment to his schedule and sell off some of his assets to make ends meet.

he had to choose between paying for his own health insurance or that of his children. he had to give up his own insurance to ensure there is never a lapse in coverage for his children. he makes too much money to qualify for child care subsidies but lives with constant anxiety over his financial situation. and part of his testimony and that of his wife is very emotional because of the stress and the pressure on that family. the stress and pressure of health care itself but also the stress and pressure because of the cost of child care. i was grateful he was willing to share his story. it's not easy to do that in a public setting to talk about the burdens that you live with every day in order to tell a story to push a policy forward to make life better for another family. so like a lot of these parents, i was grateful they were willing to help us better understand

those struggles so that we can better propose good policy. we also heard from a single mom who works long hours trying to advance and work her way up the corporate ladder. prior to her current circumstance she was waitressing and barely making $11,000 a year. when she was hardly making any income she was able to make ends meet with the assistance of the supplemental nutrition assistance program and ccis, which is our state's child care program that helps -- helps families. now she's in a different circumstance. now she works full time, an achievement she's quite proud of, to have a full-time job, she's no longer eligible, though, for these programs because her income went up. the good news her income went up and she has a full-time job, the bad sniews that knox -- news is

that knocks her out of eligibility. she must pay the full cost of child care and be away from her children. she doesn't know what she'll do during the summer as she'll need to increase the time her children are in care which will result in higher cost when her children are on summer break. that's the dilemma she faces, working harder, getting a full-time job, but then not being eligible for help. she needs help from us as well. i spoke with a mother in allegheny county, ver roana -- verona, pennsylvania, who has an 11-month-old child in child care now. though she and her husband both work full time, they struggle to pay for care. they would like to grow their care, but, again, the cost of child care is the main reason for not doing so. we know that child care helps children grow and learn, that it helps parents work and provide for their families, and it helps

employers retain a productive workforce, yet families across the country are unable to afford care. so that's why it's so important that we increase federal investments in early learning and child care. for example, in fiscal year 2018, the child care and development block grant program was funded at $5.27 billion here in washington. that was an 83% increase, the largest single increase in the history of the program. and head start, that same year, last year, last appropriations year, head start received a little more than $9.8 billion, and that was $610 million more than the program got in 2017. both of those were good results. it doesn't happen every day in washington, we know. these historic bipartisan investments were continued last

fiscal year. so an increase this last fiscal year. nowhere near the increase of the prior year, but extra dollars to sustain funding. these investments are already making an impact in places like pennsylvania, states like pennsylvania and across our country, but there's so much more unmet need and so much more work to be done. so good news on the block grants but, of course, that's not the whole story on child care. so i'm pushing for both increased funding for the next fiscal year, the one we're working on now, 2020, as well as two bills that will make high-quality child care accessible and affordable for low- and middle-income families. the first is the child care for working families act and the second is the child and dependent care tax credit enhancement act. i'll do them in that order. the child care for working families act would provide first

direct financial assistance to working parents to help pay for child care and early learning, ensuring that no parent would pay more than 7% of their household income for child care if they earn less than 150% of a state's median income. in our state the median household income, and these numbers change between median household income and median family income, but if you're just looking at median household income in pennsylvania, it's about $57,000. so if you do 150% of that, you're into the 80's roughly. we don't know where the inline -- where the line would be drawn for certain state by state, but if we could come up with a way to keep costs below 7% for folks making in that income range, say roughly, and this is a rough number, in the low 80's, down, we could help these families do two things, go to work, provide child care for

their children that is quality child care, but also be able to afford it. the second part of the bill, and it's basically three parts -- the second part of the bill is universal access to high-quality preschool programs for 3le-year-old -- 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds and improve workforce compensation to make sure all child care workers are paid a living wage and early child care workers are paid the same as teachers with similar credentials. there is child care help, early help with preschool and paying the workforce more. people in both parties say it all the time, we care about our children and we care about our seniors, but sometimes the folks that provide care to both groups of americans, those who provide care in early learning to

children and those who provide skilled care in nursing centers are among the lowest paid workers in our society. we say we prioritize those americans and we don't lift them up with the kind of workforce that they sometimes need. the second bill i'll talk about and then i'll wrap up, mr. president, i will soon reintroduce with congressman davis is a proposal to improve and expand an existing tax credit which we know as the child and dependent care tax credit, not to be confused with the child tax credit, the tax credit you have -- you may have eligibility for if you have a child. this one focuses on child care and dependent care. this bill would help families pay for child care expenses by doing the following. first, increasing the maximum amount of the credit from just over $1,000, about $1,050 to

$3,000 per child, and it could go up as high as $6,000 if you have one child, making the full tax credit available to most working families with incomes up to $120,000 a year. now, under the current law, that credit starts to lose its value once you only hit $15,000 of income, not that high of an income level. by raising that number, you're going to get a lot more middle-class families that will benefit as well as some trying to get to the middle class. the third part of the bill would ensure that lower-income families are better able to benefit from the credit by making it fully refundable. you have this strange dynamic where folks are working and they have an income, but the income is rather limited and the credit is not refundable, so they don't get anything back from that credit. so it isn't worth much to them

in many cases. the last part of the bill will retain the value over time by indexing the benefits of this child and dependent care tax credit and raise those thresholds based upon inflation. mr. president, in conclusion, i think it's pretty simple. all children deserve the chance to learn and succeed, regardless of where they're born or regardless of their family's income. that's why it's so important that we ensure that all families have access to high-quality, affordable child care and early learning. together these proposals will help bring us closer to that reality, and i would argue closer to meeting our obligation as elected officials at every level of government, this being the federal level and the congress, the senate, and the house, meeting our obligation to make sure that that light inside of every child burns to the full

measure and shines to the full measure of its potential. mr. president, i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, is the senate presently in a

quorum call in. the presiding officer: we are. mr. whitehouse: in that case, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that that quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, this week the senate conveyor belt of president trump's judicial nominees grinds on. so far the president and the senate leader have an unprecedented pace in confirming federal judges, especially powerful federal appellate judges. they seem to have no higher priority. what's a little weird about this is that nearly 90% of trump's appellate judges and both his supreme court justices are members of the so-called federalist society.

on the supreme court, kavanaugh, gorsuch, alito, thomas all are members. now, that's a little weird. what's really weird is that through this federalist society vehicle, big special interests are picking federal judges. in effect, there are three federalist societies. the first one most lawyers know from law school. it is, for the most part, a debating society made up of like-minded aspiring lawyers drawn to conservative ideas and judicial doctrine. they organize seminars and invite academics and judges and attorneys to speak. that's terrific. no problem there. the second federalist society is the parent organization of the campus debating society, a sort

of high-brow think tank seeking to further conservative and libertarian judicial principles. it convenes fancy forums with conservative legal luminaries from supreme court justices to big-name politicians to renowned legal scholars. it issues newsletters and produces podcasts and policy recommendations. through this, they hope to, quote, reorder priorities within the legal system, end quote. and create a network of members, quote, that extends to all levels of the legal community, end quote. i disagree pretty strongly with the system of law they are trying to impose and their funding is suspiciously be a secure -- obscure, but this debate is a fine thing to have. so no objection there either. then there is the third

federalist society. this one doesn't have much in common with the law school debating society, and it certainly doesn't operate like your run-of-the-mill washington think tank. this federalist society is the nerve center for a complicated apparatus that does not care much about conservative principles like judicial restraint or originalism or textualism. this federalist society is the vehicle for powerful commercial and industrial interests which seek not simply to, quote, reorder the judiciary but to acquire control of the judiciary to benefit their interests. this third federalist society understands the fundamental

power of the federal judicial to rig the system in favor of its donor interests. and as the kavanaugh confirmation so clearly illustrated is willing to go to drastic lengths to secure that power. i'm here to today to talk about that third federalist society. the story of the third federalist society is partly the story of a man named leonard leo, the society's executive vice president. mr. leo is now the most influential person shaping america's federal judiciary. don't be surprised if you're listening and you have never heard of him. he's never been elected. he's not accountable to any voter. instead, he is the frontman for

interests that want to use the federalist society and its surrounding network of front groups and p.r. shops and think tanks to acquire control over our courts. renowned court watcher jeffrey toobin describes mr. leo as, quote, trump's subcontractor on the selection of supreme court justices. more accurately, mr. leo is the subcontractor for a network of big corporate interests and front groups. in the summer of 2016, it was leo who delivered the list of potential nominees to fill the vacancy left by the death of antonin scalia and the blocking of merrick garland. it was mr. leo who was involved in the trump transition, helping to conduct outreach to potential

supreme court picks, including neil gorsuch. mr. leo even orchestrated a million-dollar donation to trump's inauguration. the role of the federalist society has been confirmed by president trump's own legal counsel don mcgahn. mcgahn told the federalist society gathering in 23017 -- and i'll quote him here -- our opponents of judicial nominees frequently claim the president has outsourced his selection of judges. that is completely false. it's been a member of the federalist society since law school, still am. so frankly it seems like it's been insourced, end quote. ha ha! so funny. the federalist society does more than pick the judges. they prepare them.

they study the prospective nominees and the senators who will ask them questions. they gather murder boards for nominees to practice for confirmation hearings. mr. leo is proud of this operation. during the confirmation hearing for justice neil gorsuch, leo told toobin, with considerable satisfaction -- i'll quote him here -- you know, the hearings matter so much less than they once did. we have the tools now to do all the research we know everything they've written. we know what they've said. there are no surprises. end quote. in the judiciary committee, we see the result over and over again. meaningless committee hearings where nominees parrot empty words about applying law to fact and respecting precedent and then, once confirmed and on the bench, those nominees deliver

dependly for the partisan and corporate donors behind this federalist society operation. bad enough that judicial selection has been outsourced or insourced to a partisan private entity. worse is how nontransparent this all is. it's hard to find out who is behind it. it's a very nontransparent problem. but here is what we have been able to piece together. the evidence is that the federalist society is funded by massive secret contributions from corporate right-wing groups that have big agendas before the courts. in 2017, the federalist society took $5.5 million via an entity

called donors' trust. donors' trust has its sole purpose to launder the identities of donors to other groups so that americans don't know who the real backers are of the groups. it is an identity removal machine for big donors. through the hard work of investigators, journalists, and researchers, we have learned that the koch brothers are among the largest if not the largest contributors to donors' trust. the federalist society's total annual budget is about $20 million, so this $5.5 million in funding laundered through donors trust

provides more than a quarter of its entire budget. other shadowy corporate and right-wing organizations also donate millions to the federalist society. in one year, the lindy and harry bradley foundation, a right-wing trust, gave over $3 million. -- $3 million to the federalist society. koch industries, several other koch network foundations and trusts, and nearly a dozen wholly anonymous donors have given over $100,000 each to the federalist society. tax documents from 2014 uncovered by "the new york times" showed a donation of more than $2 million from the mercer family, the secretive donors who helped start breitbart news and

bankrolled the trump campaign. how do we know that these groups have a big agenda before the courts? we know that because they also fund a fleet of front groups that file so-called amicus briefs before courts, signaling what results the big donors want. the kochs, the bradleys, the mercers, and their ilk spend millions to pursue an antiregulation, antiunion, and antienvironment agenda, and they use the federalist society to stock the judiciary with judges who will rule their way. the federalist society as a

501-c-3 organization is supposed to stay out of politics. the judicial crisis network is a 501-c-4 organization which can and does get involved in politics. the judicial crisis network is led by a disciple of leonard leo's, a former clerk for ultraconservative justice clarence thomas. the judicial crisis network has been described in conservative circles as -- and i quote here -- leonard leo's p.r. organization, nothing more and nothing less. when it comes time to muscle a judicial nominee through senate confirmation, judicial crisis network swings into action. media campaigns, attack ads, big spending, that's the judicial

crisis network's world. like its federalist society partner, the judicial crisis network gets massive sums of dark money, and it spends massively, too. it spent $7 million on campaigns to block merrick garland from getting a hearing on his nomination to the supreme court, and it spent $10 million to support the nomination, the blockade enabled of neil gorsuch. and $7 million and $10 million, and it received one anonymous donation of $17.9 million. one donor gave $17.9 million to

this operation to influence our judiciary. i will say we need to know who that donor was. because we're in the minority, we're going to be spurned and rejected if we try to get that information on the house side where they have the superpower of subpoena, we need to pursue that. it ought to be public information when one donor can spend nearly $18 million to influence the selection of a united states supreme court justice. the judicial crisis network then got $23 million from something called the well spring committee. you will have to forgive some of this because it's very obscure. these are peculiar groups that

aren't involved in any ordinary business or regular activity. the well spring -- wellspring committee is a rirnlg-based entity with ties to -- you guessed it -- leonard leo, and the judicial crisis network then promised to spend as much on the kavanaugh nomination as they had for gorsuch. add to this mix of peculiarly funded and obscure organizations the b.h. group, a shell corporation that gave $1 million to donald trump's inaugural. b.h. group received over a million dollars in something called consulting fees in 2017 from something else called the

judicial education project. who are the judicial education project? the judicial education project is -- guess what? -- the 501-c-3 side of the judicial crisis network. why does a shell corporation give money to the trump inaugural and also serve as a consultant to a legal organization fighting for the confirmation of specific justices? what consulting did they do? was there any consulting done at all? great questions. leonard leo probably knows the answer. in 2018, he told the federal

elections commission that b.h. group was his employer. while this apparatus may be complex and difficult to track, its goal is simple. don mcgahn explained it succinctly. i quote -- regulatory reform and judicial selection are deeply connected, end quote. translated, that means the federalist society's goal is to pack the judiciary through judicial selection with judges who will deliver what is called regulatory reform, an extreme antiregulation, antiunion, antienvironment agenda for those

corporatist federalist society funders. let me give you two examples. the senate just confirmed neomi rao to the d.c. circuit court of appeals. rao comes right out of the deep bog of special interest dark money. her bioappears on the federalist society website, along with a list of 26 times she has has ben featured at federalist society events, 26 auditions, one might describe them as. this is a person confirmed for the d.c. court of appeals who has never been a judge. she has never even tried a case. what has she done? she has served as the trump administration's point person

for tearing down federal regulations. as the head of the white house's office of information and regulatory affairs. among her greatest hits was taking one of scott pruitt's proposed regulatory rollbacks for the climate change driving gas methane from the oil and gas industry and tipping that regulation even further in favor of fossil fuel polluters. out-pruitting scott pruitt for the fossil fuel industry? it's hard to do. that may have been another audition for the court. rao also funded the so-called

center for the study of the administrative state at george mason university's antonin scalia law school, which is devoted to conjuring ways to roll back as many regulations affecting these corporations as possible and is funded by these same secretive groups. i asked ms. rao about the funders of her center at the scalia law school. she claimed in her answers -- and by the way, i will add that these were questions for the record, written questions that she had time to consider, review, and respond to. this was not a surprise attack of an unprepared witness at a hearing. she had weeks to answer. she claimed in her answers that to the best of her knowledge,

her organization had not received any money from the federalist society, from koch family foundations, or from anonymous funders. well, that was simply not true. a virginia open records request revealed that an anonymous donor and the charles koch foundation donated $30 million earmarked specially for her organization. guess whose interests she has been conveyed onto the d.c. circuit court of appeals to protect. now consider the case of kessler v.wilke. it hasn't gotten much attention. on its face, it's about an

obscure administrative law doctrine. but keyser has been described as, i quote here, a stalking horse for much larger game. whether administrative agencies can continue to have the independence they need to regulate in the public interest. at stake could be the power of the e.p.a. to protect our air and water, of the department of labor to continue to protect workers in the workplace, of the securities and exchange commission to protect investors against financial fraud. many corporations hate regulation. the problem is regulations are pretty popular. politicians may talk about cutting red tape, but their constituents really like clean air and clean water.

they want safe workplaces, and the peace of mind that their investments are sound. that's where judges like neomi rao and cases like keyser come in. for decades we have operated in a system where congress passes laws and administrative agencies fill in the details and implement those laws using their regulatory power and their time and patience and expertise to deal with complex problems. it has worked extremely well. cases like kaisor, however, slowly chip away at that system, shifting more and more power from expert regulatory agencies

to courts. and to courts filled with more and more judges like neomi rao. the daily beast influence reporter jay michaelson has written, and i'll quote here, sometimes thought of as a legal association, the federalist society is actually a large right-wing network that grooms conservative law students still in law school sponsoring everything from free burrito lunches to conferences, speakers, and journals, links them together, mentors them, finds them jobs, and eventually places them in courts and in government, and within -- end quote. and within this federalist society is this operation i have described, funded by dark money

and designed to remake our judiciary on behalf of a distinct group of very wealthy and powerful, anonymous funders. add to that the dark money funding the so-called judicial crisis network. toad that -- add to that the dark money funding the amicus briefs telling these judges what to do. and then look at the outcomes. when the flit society-selected appointees get a majority on the court. it is not, mr. president, a pretty sight. i yield the floor.

and i'd note the absence of absa quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection.. mr. mcconnell: as if in executive session, i ask unanimous consent that at 1:30 p.m. on thursday, march 28, the senate proceed to executive session and consideration of executive calendar 9, that there be 15 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form, and that following the use or yielding back of time the senate vote on the nomination with no intervening action or debate, thatful confirmed the -- that if confirmed the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, ment president be notified of the senate's action and the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i stunned there is a -- i understand there is a bill at the desk. i he ask for its first reading.

the presiding officer: the leader is correct. the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: h.r. 297, an act to extend the federal recognition to the little shell tribe of chippewa indians of montana and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: i ask for a second reading and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provision of rule 14 i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will receive a second reading on the next legislative day. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the committee on banking, housing and urban affairs be discharged from further consideration of s. 590 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 590, a bill to reward congressional gold medals and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon

the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following senate resolutions which were submitted earlier today, s. res. 125, 126 and 127. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure en bloc? without objection, the senate will proceed en bloc. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table all en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m., thursday, march 28. further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for use later in the day, morning business be closed and the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to h.r. 268. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. mcconnell: if there is no further business to come before the senate i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow m ask consent the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, on january 16, more than two months ago, the house passed a supplemental appropriations bill, h.r. 268, that addressed the needs of all communities impacted by disaster. the house passed disaster bill provide assistance