Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I thank the chairman for her support of this valuable program and appreciate her tireless work over the years to get our States and communities the funding they need to fight crime. Her commitment to this issue is truly inspiring. While I regret that my amendment to increase funding for the JABG Program cannot move forward, I understand the realities facing the subcommittee.

Mr. CASEY. I thank the chairman and appreciate her support for the Byrne/JAG Program, the JABG Program and the COPS Program. In particular, I appreciate her support for the amendment offered by Senator Biden, myself and others to increase the COPS Program by $110 million. That is a great victory for State and local law enforcement. I assure the chairman and my constituents that I will continue the fight against crime throughout my Senate career. Amendment No. 3314

Mr. CASEY. And so, in addition to support for increased funding for the Byrne/JAG and COPS programs, my goal is to increase funding for JABG. Unfortunately, funding for the JABG Program has decreased dramatically since its inception. Originally authorized at $350 million, it was funded at $250 million from fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 2002, then dropped to $190 million in fiscal year 2003, and then to $60 million in fiscal year 2004. Since that time, funding has hovered between $50 and $60 million. President Bush sought to eliminate funding for this valuable program altogether in this year's budget proposal and in previous budget recommendations. Elimination of funding for this critical resource would seriously hamper efforts to deal effectively with juvenile delinquency. JABG would no longer be available to communities for the ongoing implementation of important accountability programming and service alternatives to youth and families involved in the juvenile justice system, including community- based alternatives to detention and intervention activities, and school-based violence prevention programming. I recognize the subcommittee's commitment to this program, and appreciate the chairman's role in restoring funding for JABG.

Mr. CASEY. I agree with the chairman that holding young offenders accountable for the consequences of their actions is one of the most effective ways to reduce juvenile crimes. We cannot ``arrest our way'' out of this problem. This truth has been emphasized over and over by the law enforcement community. While incarceration is necessary for some offenders, there are other more effective--and less costly-- interventions that can be used with many young offenders. That is why the JABG Program has been so effective and is so necessary.

Mr. CASEY. As the chairman knows, the juvenile accountability block grant program, or JABG as it is more commonly known, is a bipartisan program that was originally created in 1998 for the purpose of strengthening and creating greater accountability within the juvenile justice system. Funds are available for many program purposes, including building, expanding, and operating temporary or permanent juvenile correction or detention facilities, training of correctional personnel, developing and administering accountability-based sanctions for juvenile offenders, hiring additional juvenile judges, prosecutors, probation officers, and court-appointed defenders, and funding pretrial services for juveniles. The program has been reauthorized twice since 1998, and additional program areas purposes now allow States to implement graduated sanctions programs that include counseling, restitution, community service, and supervised probation, to establish or expand substance abuse programs, and to promote mental health screening and treatment. Program funds can also be used to establish and maintain restorative justice programs, which focus on creative sentencing and meaningful accountability measures for juvenile offenders. JABG can also be used to fund programs focused upon gang prevention, antibullying initiatives, and reentry programs that help juvenile offenders reintegrate back into the community and help lower recidivism rates among this population.

Mr. CASEY. As the Senator knows, I have authored an amendment to the Commerce, Justice and Science appropriations bill that would increase funding for the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program by $30 million. On behalf of Senator Biden and Chairman Mikulski, I have also offered an amendment that would increase funding for the Community Oriented Policing Services Program by $110 million. I am also a strong supporter of the Byrne justice assistance grant program, and I appreciate Chairman Mikulski's efforts to significantly increase funding for this program. If we truly want to decrease violent crime, research and evidence-based practices show that we must simultaneously invest in law enforcement programs and prevention and intervention services for young people. My support for these amendments, for the Byrne/JAG program, and for the underlying bill, reflect my strong commitment to this two-prong approach to reducing crime. Would the chairman permit me a moment to discuss the merits of the juvenile accountability block grant program?

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I thank the Senator. The third pillar, just like the first two, should be to take prudent steps in this strategy. The third and final pillar of a comprehensive U.S. strategy to coerce Iran into ending its defiance of the international community is to lay the groundwork for financial sanctions that make it increasingly difficult for Iranian companies and banks to do business with the global economy. The steps taken by the Treasury Department under the leadership of Secretary Paulson and his deputy, Stuart Levey, are a good first step. Utilizing existing U.S. law, such as the Patriot Act, the Treasury Department has convinced a series of major financial institutions in Western Europe and Asia to suspend business with Iranian financial institutions such as Bank Saderat and Bank Sepah by cutting off the access of these institutions to the U.S. financial system. The United States can pursue these measures outside the United Nations Security Council, as they involve U.S. laws and regulations. As a result, Iranian firms are increasingly forced to finance their transactions in Euros, not dollars, and find that conducting routine financial transactions to be more difficult and costly. Once again, we must demonstrate to the average Iranian that they are the ones who pay a price for the unwise decisions of the Iranian regime--which will only serve to heighten domestic unrest and dissatisfaction with the regime's current course. It is for this reason I am so pleased to cosponsor the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, introduced by my colleagues Senators Obama and Brownback. This legislation would call upon the Treasury Department to publicly identify all companies that invest in a minimum level of funds in the Iranian economy, giving pension funds and individual investors an informed choice on whether to continue to direct funds to those firms that do business with Iran. In addition, the legislation would grant unfettered legal authority to State and local governments to divest their investment holdings of any such firms that do business in Iran. If the State of Pennsylvania, for example, wishes to wash its hands clean of any firms that directly or indirectly support Iran's pursuit of a nuclear program, this legislation ensures that it can do so free from any lawsuits. I wish to conclude this statement by briefly discussing what we should not do. If we are to convince the Iranian regime that a nuclear weapons program and support for extremist groups are not in their best interests, then we should strive to remove any plausible excuse they have for engaging in such behavior. That means the United States should de-emphasize the threat of regime change. When people associated with the Vice President drop hints on their desire to overthrow the Iranian regime and the advantages of using military force, they only reinforce a strong nationalist streak within Iran and serve to rally the Iranian people around an otherwise unpopular government. The Iranian people rightly aspire for democratic change. To the extent that the U.S. Government can support such aspirations in an effective manner, we should do so through quiet assistance to forces promoting civil society and the rule of law inside Iran. People-to- people exchanges can help bring young Iranians to the United States and demonstrate the benefits of a democratic culture and a government informed by the consent of the people. Credible public diplomacy, including the transmission of accurate and unbiased news into Iran, is another necessary pillar. But, as Iraq has so painfully taught us, imposing democracy at the spear of bayonet is not a realistic option, especially when our military is already so overstretched. So the United States should talk less about regime change and talk more about behavior change when it comes to Iran. We should make clear that Washington is prepared to engage an Iran that ends its illicit nuclear activities and ceases support for Hamas, Hezbollah, insurgent forces in Iraq, and other extremist groups across the region. Laying out a credible choice to the Iranian regime represents our best hope for defusing the crisis over Iran's nuclear program and persuading Iran to end its support for antidemocratic groups throughout the Middle East. The tentative success achieved in North Korea gives us a model for which to aspire. During the President's first term, his administration raised the desirability of regime change in Pyongyang at every opportunity. Since 2005, under the leadership of Assistant Secretary Chris Hill, the United States has substituted patient diplomacy for fiery rhetoric and we may finally achieve real success in containing and rolling back North Korea's nuclear program. Iran today represents one of the greatest national security challenges to the United States. It is incumbent that we respond to this threat with hardheaded diplomacy and an appropriate set of financial sanctions to squeeze the Iranian economy, putting aside for now ill-advised talk of hasty military action. Iran's leaders must be presented with a fundamental choice: end your defiance of the international community or face growing isolation. I think we have an opportunity to get this policy right, but this will require bipartisan work. It will require cooperation in this body and the other body, and it will require the administration to work with the Congress to get this policy right. We cannot afford to get our Iranian policy wrong and make the same mistakes we made--this country made--leading up to the war in Iraq. So for that reason and all of the reasons I outlined in my statement, it is imperative that we do this carefully and thoughtfully to get this policy right, to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear capability which threatens the Middle East and threatens the United States and threatens the entire world. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY. If I could have about 3\1/2\ to 4 more minutes.

Mr. CASEY. Yes.

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise to speak on the challenge posed by Iran to our national security and the interests of our friends and allies, how the United States should best address the challenge posed by Iran and its leader Ahmadi-Nejad. This has been much in the news lately. The Iranian President visited New York to the United Nations general assembly last week and delivered a controversial address at Columbia University. During the very same week, the Senate approved a resolution condemning Iranian activity that helped destabilize Iraq and called upon the administration to take actions to deter future Iranian meddling in Iraq and other places. It is no surprise that the debate over how to handle Iran occurs very much in the shadow of the Iraq war. Five years ago, Congress voted to give the President the authorization to go to war against Saddam Hussein based upon Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction programs. The shocking failure to uncover those so-called WMD programs and the fatally flawed manner in which the President took our Nation to war must weigh upon all of us now as we debate the right course of action against Iran. Let me be clear from the outset: Through its refusal to halt prohibited nuclear activities in the face of multiple United Nations resolutions, its support for extremist groups across the region, and its harsh crackdown in recent months on human rights and civil society leaders, the Government of Iran has demonstrated why it should be isolated from the international community. The United States must take the lead in a concerted campaign to coerce Iran into changing course, drawing upon all facets of American power, in close coordination with friends and allies. We must always remember that while the Iranian Government may be hostile to our interests and values, it does not speak for the Iranian people. While the Iranian clerical regime, in power since the 1979 resolution, has remained reliably anti-American, the Iranian people, led by a younger generation born after the traumatic events of the last 1970s, are remarkably open to American ideals. Two-thirds of the Iranian population is below the age of 30. These Iranians view the United States as a potential friend, not as an implacable enemy. Few Americans remember that a candlelight vigil was spontaneously organized in Tehran shortly following the 9/11 attacks, attended by thousands of ordinary Iranians to honor the memory of those who perished in those terrible attacks. I can think of no other Muslim nation where such a public expression of sympathy and solidarity emerged in the grief- stricken days following September 11. So in articulating our response to Iran's recent provocations, we must always distinguish between the oppressive clerical regime and the Iranian people. The mullahs in Tehran would love nothing more than a perception that the United States, and the broader West, by extension, is hostile toward Iran itself. It would spark an instant boost in popularity for the regime. Accordingly, any U.S. policy to diffuse Iran's nuclear program and halt its support for extremist groups elsewhere must be undertaken in a careful fashion, emphasizing that our quarrel lies with the clerical regime, not the people of Iran. Let me first address Iran's nuclear program. The Iranian regime has forfeited the goodwill of the international community by engaging in a secret program over the past two decades to develop the key components of a nuclear fuel cycle--uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing. These activities can constitute the elements of a peaceful civilian nuclear program, but the nuclear nonproliferation treaty to which Iran is a signatory requires that nations fully disclose such activities in an open and transparent fashion. That Iran went to such lengths to conceal its activities and continues today to refuse to provide a full accounting of the history of this program leads a reasonable observer to suspect that the program was intended not just for a civilian nuclear program but also to enable the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. This crisis came to a head in 2003, when reports from an Iranian exile group prompted the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, to open an investigation. Despite initial efforts by an alliance of European powers to persuade Iran to come clean with the IAEA, Tehran continued to work on its uranium enrichment program, spurning offers of economic and trade benefits. Last year the United Nations Security Council took action, passing an initial resolution calling upon Iran to suspend all uranium enrichment activities. Iran ignored that resolution. The Security Council passed two successive resolutions imposing a set of limited sanctions. Yet again, the Iranian regime chose to ignore a clear message from the international community. Today the United States is in talks with other U.N. Security Council members on a third and potentially more far- ranging round of sanctions. To its credit, the Bush administration has made very clear to Iran that the United States is willing to join a comprehensive dialog with Iran and the so-called EU-3 nations--meaning the United Kingdom, France, and Germany--once Iran verifiably suspends its uranium enrichment activities. Iran has refused to do so, and so it is on pace to operate as many as 3,000 uranium centrifuges by the end of the year. Under a worst-case estimate, if Iran were to eject all international inspectors and operate these 3,000 centrifuges around the clock, it could produce sufficient fissile material for one nuclear warhead within a year. An armed Iran that has a nuclear weapon or nuclear weapons would be emboldened to intimidate its neighbors, export Islamic extremism throughout the region, and deter the United States and others from defending their core interests. A regime with leaders who have openly called for the destruction of the State of Israel by ``wiping it'' off the face of the Earth cannot be allowed to possess the means to achieve that goal. Furthermore, we cannot abide the risk, however small, that a nuclear Iran may one day decide to share its nuclear technology and material with a client terrorist group such as Hamas or Hezbollah. Iran's nuclear program also poses a genuine danger to the future of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, so-called NPT, an agreement that has helped prevent the nightmare vision of President Kennedy of a world with 20 nuclear powers from coming to fruition. The NPT is based upon a fundamental premise. A nonnuclear weapon state is entitled to a civilian nuclear program in exchange for committing to verification and inspections to ensure it does not produce nuclear weapons. Yet Iran threatens to demonstrate a backdoor option for future nuclear aspirants. Here is what it is: build a civilian program, with a complete nuclear fuel cycle, in open view to acquire the basic knowledge to produce nuclear fissile material. After achieving that goal, a nation can then withdraw from the NPT and, utilizing the knowledge gained from its civilian program, build nuclear weapons. This so-called virtual nuclear weapon threatens to undermine the NPT and lead to a world where multiple states are poised on the thin line between civilian nuclear power and weapons programs. For that reason, the international community must demonstrate a united front to compel Iran away from that path through diplomatic and economic pressure. The threat posed by an Iranian nuclear weapon is very real. However, we cannot afford to panic and blindly accept worst-case scenarios, as we did with Iraq to such tragic ends. Iran has made great strides in its nuclear program over the past 3 years, but it must do much more if it seeks a nuclear weapon. We do not know to what extent those Iranian centrifuges already produced are operationally active and whether they have been linked together in a required ``enriched cascade.'' We do not know whether the Iranian regime has begun work on warhead design so any highly enriched uranium that may eventually be produced can be fabricated into an actual nuclear weapon. It is those uncertainties, and the recognition that any ``crash program'' to build a nuclear weapon will encounter inevitable difficulties, that explain why our intelligence community has judged that Iran is not likely--not likely--to acquire a nuclear weapon until the early to middle part of the next decade. This conclusion is spelled out in the most recent National Intelligence Estimate. Based upon what the International Atomic Energy Agency has been reporting with regard to the Iranian nuclear program, and what our own intelligence community is telling us, we have time--we have time--to resolve this very complex, serious challenge. That does not mean we have the luxury to relax or postpone difficult choices, but, rather, that we can exercise a methodical approach that gradually escalates the diplomatic and economic pressure against Iran in a unified manner. We must present a very clear choice to the Iranian regime--it is this--one that will be visible to the people of Iran: End all illicit nuclear activities, come back into compliance with IAEA safeguards, and provide full transparency. That is one choice. In return, the United States and our European partners will be prepared to return to the table and discuss potential economic and trade benefits. If Iran chooses the path of continued defiance--the path they have been on--we must show that the international community is prepared to deny Iran the benefits of the global economy, including trade in key energy products, facilitation of essential financial transactions, and investment in key economic sectors. Iran's nuclear program is not the only threat that emanates from Tehran today. Just as critical is Iran's ongoing support for extremist movements across the region, ranging from Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Hezbollah in Lebanon to Shiite militia forces in Iraq. Unfortunately, Iran's leadership today has made the strategic decision to support these forces, promoting chaos and instability across the Middle East. The Iranian Government has placed itself on the side of those who are undermining democratically elected governments, fomenting violence and anarchy, and contributing to attacks against U.S. forces. So long as the Iranian Government continues to bankroll and supply weapons to terrorist groups and insurgent militias, we cannot expect any semblance of constructive dialog between Tehran and Washington. The evidence surrounding Iranian involvement in Iraq is particularly disturbing. Iran has interests in Iraq. We know that. The Shiite majority that now has power for the first time in Iraq shares vast cultural, religious, and political links with the Iranian people. However, Iran and Iraq are two different nations, and the Shiite population in Iraq does not and should not serve as a proxy for the mullahs in Tehran. When the Iranian Government provides weapons and financing to sectarian militias battling other Iraqis as well as U.S. forces in Iraq, it is only exacerbating the violence that currently plagues Iraq. The administration in Washington, supported by our military leadership, has alleged that the Iranian Government has directly supplied insurgent groups in Iraq with mortars, rocket-propelled grenades, and, most dangerous of all, the explosive formed penetrators that have served as the most lethal of roadside bombs killing American troops. The evidence the administration has provided--serial numbers on the weapons linking them to Iranian sources and eyewitness testimony--is compelling. It remains unclear to what degree this assistance has proceeded with the direct knowledge of Iran's senior ruling leadership. Regardless, the Iranian Government must be held responsible for all activities--all activities--emanating from its territory or carried out by its agents. Iran must work with the United States and the international community in supporting a stable Iraq and deemphasizing sectarian conflict there. The question that we, as Senators, must answer is how best to persuade and, if necessary, compel Iran to change its behavior both in terms of its nuclear program and its support for extremist groups. What are the tools available to us to persuade Iran that its current course of action will only further isolate it from the international community? How can we promote fissures inside the Iranian regime between the hard-line elements associated with President Ahmadi-Nejad and more pragmatic figures? I believe the United States should implement a strategy of containment to deny the Iranian regime any benefits from its nuclear program and support for extremist forces, while laying out potential-- potential--incentives if and when the regime changes its behavior. Let me be clear: Military force is always an option, but it is not an option that makes sense under the current circumstances. Instead, the United States should pursue a three-pronged strategy against Iran's nuclear program and its support for extremist groups. First, the United States should continue its campaign to diplomatically isolate Iran at the United Nations Security Council. The Security Council has condemned Iran's evasion and deceit of the IAEA and called on Iran, in order to restore the world's confidence in the ostensibly peaceful aims of its nuclear program, to halt all work--to halt all work--on its uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing activities. While some may view that action as insignificant, it is important to remember that Iran never expected Russia or China--its two primary benefactors--to sign onto such resolutions. Yet the State Department has carefully brought along Moscow and Beijing at every step so that the international community is speaking in a united voice to Tehran. Today, the Iranian regime is viewed as a pariah state at the international level, with sanctions imposed by the Security Council and key officials linked to the nuclear program prohibited from international travel. Now it is time for the United States to further isolate Iran diplomatically. Washington can encourage other nations to avoid contact with Mr. Ahmadi-Nejad, who should be shunned first and foremost for his noxious anti-Semitic remarks. The United States should propose, as one element--as one element--of the next sanctions resolution, to impose a complete prohibition on arms exports to Iran. To the extent we can make a clear linkage between Iran's defiance on its nuclear program and its further diplomatic isolation, more and more Iranians, including influential officials in the Government and military, will question the wisdom of proceeding with its nuclear program. Second, the United States should take action in concert with other nations to apply substantial pressure on Iran's energy sector. Although Iran boasts the world's second largest oil reserves, its oil production has been falling in recent years, as its oilfields suffer from a lack of investment. More importantly, as Iran's population continues to grow by a half a million people every year, demand for oil and other energy resources is beginning to outstrip domestic supply. Iran will soon be forced to confront a choice between diverting petroleum exports to its domestic needs, thus surrendering much needed foreign currency, or facing increasing shortages at home. There are concrete steps the Congress can take. S. 970, the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007, of which I am proud to serve as a cosponsor, would close existing loopholes in the Iran Sanctions Act that currently allows subsidiaries of multinational firms to escape U.S. sanctions when they invest in Iran's energy sector. I agree with Representative Tom Lantos, who has pushed forward similar legislation on the House side, when he says the ultimate U.S. goal should be zero-- zero--foreign investment in Iran's energy sector until it changes course on its nuclear program. Iran exhibits a particular vulnerability when it comes to gasoline. It is still suffering from the after effects of the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, when much of Iran's capacity to refine gasoline was destroyed. In recent years, U.S. sanctions have limited the ability of Iran to rebuild its refining capacity through foreign investment. Accordingly, Iran is forced to import as much as 40 percent--40 percent--of its annual consumption of refined gasoline, despite its vast oil riches. This imbalance between supply and demand for refined gasoline is exacerbated by Iran's practice of subsidizing gasoline prices for its citizens, which only artificially boosts demand. Today, Iran ensures that refined gasoline is available to Iranian citizens at the subsidized price of 38 cents per gallon. It is no wonder, then, that Iran, early this year, was forced to take the draconian step of rationing gasoline, limiting the owners of private vehicles to no more than 26 gallons of fuel per month. This decision produced a backlash in the country, with more than 50 petrostations in Iran burned to the ground by angry mobs and plummeting support for the Iranian President, who largely ascended to power in 2005 on the basis of his promise to improve Iran's economy. Iran's growing shortages of refined gasoline is a golden opportunity for the international community as it tightens the screws on Iran's leadership. The average Iranian will question why Iran's leadership continues to pursue an illicit nuclear program at the cost of gasoline shortages and economic unrest. For that reason, I am working on legislation to expand the scope of the Iran Sanctions Act to crack down on all foreign exports of refined gasoline products to Iran until the leadership there changes course on its nuclear program. I wish to now go to the third and final pillar of a comprehensive U.S. strategy to coerce Iran into ending its defiance of the international community.

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

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I thank you and commend the work of our senior Senator from Maryland on this bill and so many others. I appreciate her hard work on this bill and giving us this time. Amendment No. 3256 Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 3256 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, the COPS Program was created in 1994, known then as the Biden crime bill, in response to historically high rates of crime. Over 100,000 community policing officers were hired to work the streets of communities across America. This successful program not only increases the number of police officers on the street to fight crime but also emphasizes building collaboration and partnership between the community and law enforcement so we can prevent crime in addition to fighting crime. Crime was driven down from all-time highs to historic lows. It stayed low until about 2 years ago, when budgetary cuts by this administration began to show up in rising crime statistics. Data released this week from the FBI shows that violent crime has increased again for the second year in a row. Philadelphia is one of several cities that is experiencing severe problems with violence. Although the crime increases of the past 2 years may be characterized by some as minor, they are alarming because they follow a steady 10- year decline in crime rates across the country. Why is this alarming increase in effect? Well, some researchers and experts predict that the uptick in crime rates are in part due to the administration's budget cuts. In recent years, billions in Federal funding for State and local law enforcement have been cut--including the near complete elimination of the COPS hiring program. As a result, once again crime is rising across the Nation. The latest FBI crime reports showed a 1.9-percent increase in violent crime. This is the first 2-year increase in crime rates since the COPS Program was first created and hiring was funded. It is no coincidence that when Congress funded COPS, crime went down, but when the administration eliminated the COPS hiring program, crime began to rise. I would argue that if the President of the United States can find billions for tax breaks for wealthy Americans, he should be able to find funds for putting police on the streets of America. Independent studies have verified the effectiveness of the COPS Program. The GAO found a statistical link between the COPS Program grants and reductions in violent crime. The Brookings Institute reported that COPS is one of the most cost-effective options for fighting crime. They found it saves lives and saves money. So it is critical that Congress funds not only priorities overseas but here at home. Rising crime is an alarming and complex problem. There is no one solution, but having more cops on the street is part of the solution. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Biden and our numerous cosponsors in increasing funding for this critical program that will provide us with more law enforcement on the streets and greater safety in our communities. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. CASEY. I will.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of Senator Biden, who cannot be here today, and I join him in offering an amendment to provide funding for hiring more officers for the Community Oriented Policing Services Program, or what is known popularly as the COPS Program. Joining us on this amendment are Senators Mikulski, Kohl, Bingaman, Clinton, Kerry, Levin, Kennedy, Bayh, Cantwell, Boxer, Schumer, Dodd, Collins, Cardin, Reed of Rhode Island, and Nelson of Nebraska. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that Senators Lautenberg and Klobuchar be added as cosponsors, as well as Senator Whitehouse from Rhode Island.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I thank my colleague, Senator Specter, for his important work over the years on this issue, and I greatly appreciate our collaboration since I have taken office to find both an immediate and a long-term solution to the wage index problem. This issue is critical to ensuring that health care is available to Pennsylvanians and all Americans in areas that are being underfunded by the Medicare wage index reimbursement system. Further complicating this issue are the exceptions to the Medicare wage index regulations. Since 1987, exceptions have been created to the wage index program for rural facilities, new facilities and others. In fact, in 1999, Congress passed legislative reclassifications for specific hospitals to allow selected facilities to move to a new MSA and receive greater Medicare reimbursement. While these reclassifications have improved funding for those hospitals, hospitals that did not receive improved funding are being further disadvantaged.

Mr. CASEY. I thank my colleagues as well and look forward to resolving this issue. eas

Mr. CASEY. I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee for their support on this issue. The House of Representatives has already moved forward to pass legislation that would extend this program. This program is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2007, and action to extend the program for 2 years must be taken. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate our conversations about this issue in which you expressed your commitment to working to pass an extension to the section 508 Medicare wage index program this fall that will also make hospitals whole to the date of expiration.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise for a few moments because I know there are other people in this Chamber who have worked for many years on this bill who wish to speak. Senator Kennedy is here. I wish to take a few moments to rebut what was said about a half an hour ago. Our colleague from Oklahoma was making some arguments, and I want to rebut some of them. I know this has been a long debate, but it is important. He and others have made the claim about government-run health insurance over and over, and I think that is a White House talking point. I understand where they get the line. This is a program which uses private insurance carriers to provide the services especially to do the administration. So that argument really does not make a lot of sense. Secondly, he talked about shifting costs and people paying more taxes. It is very clear, just as the argument of our colleague from Kentucky made clear, that the increase in this program, the $35 billion to cover 4 million more children, comes from tobacco tax increases. We can have debates about whether it is right or wrong, but most people in America support an increase in the tobacco tax to pay for this legislation. We are not talking about an income tax or any other kind of tax. Thirdly, fiscal responsibility. We heard people talk about that issue today. No one on this side of the aisle needs a lecture from that side of the aisle or anywhere else about fiscal responsibility. This administration is the administration that brought us to a $9 trillion debt level and huge deficits. I think that is disingenuous. I want to read a quotation from a recognized expert from MIT, Professor Jonathan Gruber, on private versus public: I have undertaken a number of analyses to compare public sector costs of public sector expansions such as SCHIP to alternatives such as tax credits. I find that the public sector provides much more insurance coverage at a much lower cost under SCHIP than these alternatives. Tax subsidies mostly operate to ``buy out the base'' of insured without providing much new coverage. That quote is from a recognized expert. We heard discussions about the cost over 5 years. This is a 5-year reauthorization. The cost is not, as it was alleged before, some lie. The cost over 5 years is very simple: $25 billion is in the program now. We want to add $35 billion, so it is a $60 billion cost over 5 years. It makes all the sense in the world to spend $12 billion a year on health insurance when billionaires get $100 million in 1 year, or I should say over $200,000 of income. They get $100 million a year if they make that kind of money. My last point is, he and others talked about this being a debate about national health insurance. We can have that debate. We agreed on that. That is one thing we all agree on, both sides of the aisle. We should have a debate about health insurance. This is not national health insurance. This is not the debate about health insurance generally. This is a very focused debate about whether the President of the United States is in favor of providing health care for 10 million children and whether he is going to make that commitment. It is very simple. If you are supporting the President, then you are supporting a policy which will lead to the failure of this country to provide health care for 10 million children, and that would be a terrible mistake for those kids, for their communities, but especially, over the long term, for our economic future. We can't compete around the world unless our kids are healthy and they learn more now and earn more in the future.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Utah for his remarks today, for his work on this bill, his work many months ago when this work began in the Senate, and for his leadership 10 years ago in 1997, when at that time, as today, we had bipartisan agreement on children's health insurance. I commend him and his colleague, Senator Grassley. On the Democratic side we have a lot of great leaders: Senator Jay Rockefeller and Senator Max Baucus, working mightily with Senator Kennedy and so many others to get this done. We still have a long way to go. We know we had a resounding 69 votes in the Senate today, but we still have one impediment to getting this done. That impediment is the President of the United States. I want to talk about some numbers today, but I want to focus initially on the benefits of this program. We are going to continue to have debates within this body and with the President about this issue. I will get to that. But let's step back for a minute and think about what this program means to one single child or what it means to one single family. Here is what it means. I come from Pennsylvania. We have some big cities in Pennsylvania: obviously, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. But what if this child is born in a rural area. I come from a State where a huge percentage of our population is, in statistical categories, considered rural. The breadth of Pennsylvania, right through the middle of the State, out toward western Pennsylvania, we have a lot of people who live in rural areas. We know the benefits of this program help a lot of our children in cities and towns and also in rural areas. In fact, one-third of rural children get their health care from Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program. We also know a lot of African-American and Latino children have benefited tremendously in the 10 years this has been part of our law. Let's think about those children. No matter where they live, let's think about what this means to them. It means they can get well-child visits to the doctor during a year. The experts tell us you need at least six of those in your first year of life to be healthy. We ought to make sure every child in America can have six well-child visits in a year, but millions don't get that. What happens to that child? That child would not grow. Their brains and cognitive development would not proceed as it should. They can't learn as fast. They can't read as quickly. They don't do as well in school. Down the road when they become part of the workforce, they have been shortchanged, if we don't do our job. It also means immunizations in the dawn of their lives and all of the preventative care a child should receive. We should be doing everything we can in this body, not just with children's health insurance but with early learning opportunities and other programs we have to help our children to do a number of things, but principally to make sure children are healthy enough to learn. We know if they learn more in the dawn of their lives, they will earn more down the road. We have to make those investments. I don't see this as just a program, something that we are giving to people. That is not what it is. The distinguished Senator from Utah said a couple moments ago, this is a capped block grant program and a good investment in that child and his or her future. But it is also an investment in our economic future. We can do a lot with this program to help families. But let's think about a mother. What does every mother want for their child, especially when they are very young? They want to nurture the child. They want to make sure the child has some kind of health care, has nutrition, and they want to shower that child with all the love and care a mother can provide. One of the benefits to reauthorizing this program and getting the job done is that we can help a mother as she is trying to provide everything she can for her child, whether she lives in a farming community in central Pennsylvania or whether she lives in one of our towns in Pennsylvania or across the country or whether she lives in the inner city. Make no mistake, this comes down to a very simple question--maybe a couple, but one basic question--which is, does the President want to cover 10 million American children? There is only one answer to that question, only one answer we can justify. There is only one answer for which we can go back to our States and say we did the right thing. That answer is, absolutely, the President should want to cover 10 million American children because if he vetoes this and his point of view prevails, 10 million children will not have health insurance. By signing this legislation we are about to send to him, he can make sure 10 million American children have health insurance. What upsets me about the President--I have been very critical of him, and I will continue to be so when it is warranted--is not just his position on this issue, not just his threat of a veto--that is bad enough. What upsets me and a lot of Americans, frankly, is the President had month after month after month to come to the Congress and say: I think we should have a $5 billion increase over 5 years. That is what he says. There is an overwhelming consensus now in the Congress that it should be a $35 billion increase. When you consider it over 5 years, that is only a billion a year. We spend $7 billion a year on a lot of things. But let's consider what he said. If he was going to take that position all those months ago, why didn't he come to the Congress? If health care for children is such a priority, why didn't he come to the Congress and say: We are far apart. The Congress is at $35 billion, and I am at $5 billion. We will work together. He didn't do that. He just laid down his number and then he began, frankly, to misrepresent the facts. That has made this argument an unfortunate episode in the debate. I have another question for the President. The question about 10 million children is very important, but I have a question for the President. What is the choice you are making? You are saying on the one hand, Mr. President, that 10 million American children should not have health insurance at the same time that in 2000 we will give away $100 billion to wealthy Americans. Is that right? I don't think so. That is immoral in my judgment, to give $100 billion to wealthy Americans and say children who could benefit from this program, 4 million more, that they don't get health insurance. It is equally immoral when the President of the United States and every Senator and every House Member gets their health insurance paid for. Yet some people say: No, we are going to wait on those children. Those 4 million children will have to wait, even though every Senator gets health care and this President gets health care every day of the week. I think that is immoral. He should recognize that. This is about numbers and budgets and a program. We will talk about that a lot. That is important. I can justify every one of those numbers. OK. I know a lot about cutting out waste and fraud. I did that for 10 years in State government. I know that subject very well. But this is a program that works. We have had a 10-year experiment with it, and it works, and everyone here knows that. It works very well to make sure we cover our children. All these other arguments about why we should not do it comes down to politics. The people who are supporting the President on this should answer the questions I posed. Why shouldn't 10 million children get health care? Why do you get health care in the Senate and those children do not get health care, according to your point of view? They should answer that question when they are supporting this President. Why should every Member of the Senate get health care and these 4 million children--plus the 6.5 million or so we can cover--why shouldn't they get health care? Why should millionaires and multimillionaires and billionaires get tax cuts in 2008 and 2009 and on into the future and these children should not have health insurance? So when you come to the floor to talk about this program, and when the President goes on television and preaches to us about why we should not do that, I hope you would be honest enough--I hope the President and every Member of this body would have the integrity to stand up and justify why 10 million kids should not have health insurance, why they, as a Member of the Senate, should have their health care paid for, and why all those wealthy Americans should get their tax cut--tens of billions this year--and these kids should not have health insurance. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I wish to reiterate much of what Senator Specter already said. This center is providing important law enforcement services right now, helping out on international drug trafficking, which helps out in the fight against terrorism. If we came to this floor every week and talked about what some Government agency said about a particular facility such as this, we would be having these votes all the time. I was the auditor of Pennsylvania. I know a lot about waste, fraud, and abuse. I know how to find it and root it out. But I also know you cannot take one Government agency's word for it. This center is providing an important service right now, in crime fighting, in keeping local law enforcement working with the Federal Government. It is an important facility in the State of Pennsylvania. There are people there who are working hard in Johnstown, PA. This is a diversion from some other things we have been doing. This is very important that we support this kind of facility. All the answers do not reside in Washington, DC. There are some people out there who know how to fight crime, some people out there who know how to root out and crack down on drug trafficking. This center plays that role. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Quickly, by way of a response, I have to say that when I was the auditor general of Pennsylvania, our office authored lots of reports about waste, fraud, and abuse and about problems in spending. What we tried to do as well was not just point out where the problems were but also to point out and to list, actually in reports, a series of recommendations and corrective actions. I think there is ample reason in a lot of public programs to make changes and to have corrective action. I don't think that always should result in the defunding or the elimination of an entire program. But we might have a disagreement on this issue, and I respectfully submit that.

Mr. CASEY. Well, there are a lot of ways to prosecute someone.