Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 20 minutes in morning business.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today, I join with Senator Sanders, my colleague from Vermont, and Senator Carper, my colleague from Delaware, in supporting an increase in funding for two essential programs in the fiscal year 2010 Homeland Security appropriations bill to support our brave firefighters: assistance to firefighter grants, AFG, and staffing for adequate fire and emergency response grants, SAFER. The Assistance to Firefighter Grants, AFG, Program, commonly referred to as fire grants, helps fund the purchase of urgently needed emergency response equipment, apparatus, and training. The AFG Program relies on direct input from the locally affected fire services in the grant process to ensure funding reaches those agencies that are most in need. A fiscal year 2007 review of AFG by the Department of Homeland Security found this program to be 95 percent effective, the second highest rating of any program at the Department. A recent needs assessment survey conducted by the Fireman's Fund Insurance Company found that 60 percent of respondents report that their local fire department has delayed equipment replacement purchases due to the economic downturn, and 50 percent reported that if economic conditions do not improve in the next year, it could affect their ability to provide service to their communities. Local fire department and EMS agencies need fire grants to continue to ensure the safety of citizens across the country. A fire company in McAdoo County, located in east-central Pennsylvania, used its fire grant to purchase an automatic defibrillator. The biggest killer of firefighters in the line of duty is heart attacks, and now the brave men and women at McAdoo Fire Company are better protected as they risk their lives every day to help those in emergency situations. SAFER grants assist fire departments in the hiring of career firefighters and the recruitment and retention of volunteer firefighters. The single most significant challenge facing volunteer fire service is recruitment and retention. Over the past two decades, the percentage of volunteer firefighters under the age of 40 has shrunk from 65 percent to 50 percent. The SAFER Grant program was created to provide funding directly to fire departments and volunteer firefighter organizations in order to help them increase the number of trained, ``front-line'' firefighters available in their local communities. SAFER grants enhance the ability of local fire departments' to comply with staffing, response and operational standards. The Center Township Volunteer Fire Department, located in western Pennsylvania, received a SAFER grant in March of 2009. With that funding, they can recruit more volunteer firefighters and retain those who already give so generously of themselves in efforts to protect and help others. SAFER grants are particularly beneficial to municipalities that are growing by expanding the number of firefighters in conjunction with increased population growth and greater housing development. I am proud of the courage and self-sacrifice of volunteer firefighters in my home State and across the Nation and want to ensure that the Federal Government supports their dedication. This amendment offers critical funding assistance to emergency first responders and ensures that the safety of our citizens remains a national priority.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today, I honor one of the great sports legends of all time, Arnold Palmer. Not only is Arnold Palmer a world- class athlete, he is a generous philanthropist and devoted husband, father, and grandfather. This son of Latrobe, PA, changed the game of golf, both how it is played and how it is appreciated, forever. Mr. Palmer learned how to play golf when he was merely 4 years old, playing with clubs his father had cut down for him at Latrobe Country Club. His talent emerged visibly at an early age, and he was soon able to outplay children far older than him. He began to caddy when he was 11 years old and later held almost every job at the country club. In his late teens, he also served as a member of the U.S. Coast Guard. His seven major career victories make Mr. Palmer one of the greatest golfers of all time. He won the Masters Tournament four times in 1958, 1960, 1962, and 1964; the U.S. Open in 1960 and the British Open in 1961 and 1962. He twice represented the United States in the Ryder Cup Match, including serving as captain of the victorious American team in 1963. In 1997, he successfully battled prostate cancer and is a champion of programs supporting cancer research and early detection. In addition to the numerous charities he supports, Mr. Palmer led a fundraising drive creating the Arnold Palmer Hospital for Children in Orlando and the Latrobe Area Hospital Charitable Foundation. Mr. Palmer has led by example in kindness, good sportsmanship, and generosity. Today, along with my colleagues, I ask Congress to award Mr. Palmer a gold medal in recognition of his service to the Nation in promoting excellence and good sportsmanship in golf.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I wish to say, first, how much I appreciate the action on that resolution. I could spend a lot of time talking about our Penguins; we are so grateful they were successful in a very hard-fought series against the Detroit Red Wings, who have a strong organization and were difficult to defeat. As a Pennsylvanian, I was especially proud that it now marks three champions in the last year: the Philadelphia Phillies in baseball, the Pittsburgh Steelers in football, and now the Pittsburgh Penguins in hockey. We are very fortunate in our State to have three champions this year. We let the Lakers have basketball for this year. We will try to get that next year.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 194, submitted earlier today.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon, at the end of a week where--and the Presiding Officer knows this in his work representing the State of Oregon and in his work as a member of our Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee--we have spent a lot of time on health care, as we did the week before and several weeks leading up to this time. But now we are at the point where in our committee we are actually voting--voting on amendments. We know this is a challenge that has faced America for decades: the challenge of covering people in our country who do not have coverage and making sure those who do have coverage have quality health care coverage that is affordable. So all these challenges are presented to us now. We have a situation in the country today--and Chairman Dodd mentioned this this morning in a hearing--that about 14,000 people a day lose their health care coverage. It is hard to comprehend that every single day that number of Americans are losing their health care coverage. Candidly, if the number was half that, it would be unacceptable--or even less than that--but that is, in a very real way, the status quo, where we are now. Thousands and thousands of people losing coverage every day, 14,000 by one count; people who might have coverage but it is hard for them to afford it or to continue to afford it, and sometimes people have coverage and it is not of the kind of quality that would ensure the best health care for them and for their families. We are at a point now where we are beginning to see a basic choice that the Congress has to make and the American people have to make. It is the status quo or change. It is the status quo--where we are now-- which, in my judgment, is unacceptable--or reform. It is coming down to a basic, fundamental choice. The status quo right now is the enemy of change. The status quo is the impediment in front of us, the tree across the road or whatever image you want to illustrate. So we have to get to work making sure that the status quo doesn't stay in place. There are so many ways to tell this story. Every Member of the Senate and every Member of the House and, frankly, virtually every American could tell a story about someone they know or someone they have read about and the challenges they face. In Pennsylvania, we have a lot of examples about people who are living the reality of a lack of coverage or bad quality coverage or coverage they cannot afford. One letter I got stood out for me, among many. It was written back in February of this year by Trisha Urban from Berks County, PA, the eastern side of Pennsylvania. I will read portions of her letter which I think tell the story about as well as anyone could; unfortunately, in this case, in a tragic circumstance. She wrote, talking about her husband Andrew, that he had to leave his job for 1 year to complete an internship requirement that he had to get his doctorate in psychology. The internship was unpaid and they could not afford COBRA coverage-- extended health care coverage. Now I am quoting from the middle of the letter. Trisha Urban says: Because of the preexisting conditions, neither my husband's health issues---- He had some heart trouble---- neither my husband's health issues nor my pregnancy would be covered under private insurance. Now I am quoting again: I worked 4 part-time jobs and was not eligible for any health care benefits. We ended up with a second rate health insurance plan through my husband's university. When medical bills started to add up, the insurance company decided to drop our coverage, stating that the internship did not qualify us for the benefits. We were left with close to $100,000 worth of medical bills. Concerned with the upcoming financial responsibility of the birth of our daughter and the burden of current medical expenses, my husband missed his last doctor's appointment less than one month ago. Trisha Urban's letter goes on. She talks about what happened at one particular moment after summarizing their health care situation. She says, describing her pregnancy: My water had broke the night before. We were anxiously awaiting the birth of our first child. A half-hour later, two ambulances were in my driveway. As the paramedics were assessing the health of my baby and me, the paramedic from the other ambulance told me that my husband could not be revived. She concludes her letter this way. Again, I am quoting Trisha Urban from Berks County, PA: I am a working class American and do not have the money or the insight to legally fight the health insurance company. We had no life insurance. I will probably lose my home and my car. Everything we worked so hard to accumulate in our life will be gone in an instant. If my story is heard, if legislation can be changed to help other uninsured Americans in a similar situation, I am willing to pay the price of losing everything. Trisha Urban is telling us through that poignant but tragic story about her own circumstances and the circumstances surrounding the birth of her daughter and the death of her husband, all we need to know about this debate. Then, posing that question--or that challenge, I should say--to all of us, especially those of us who have a vote in the Senate: I am willing to pay the price of losing everything if my story can be told and legislation can be enacted to deal with health care. That is the basic challenge that Trisha Urban has put before the Senate and the Congress and the administration. It is the challenge we must respond to. We cannot pretend it is not there. We cannot pretend that the status quo I talked about a moment ago--14,000 people losing their health insurance every day; so many other people worried about the coverage they have--we cannot pretend that is not there. We cannot say to Trisha Urban that we are sorry about the circumstances of your story, but Congress can't get it done this year. We have to get it done. We have to pass a bill in our committee. We have to get a bill through the Finance Committee, and we have to make sure the Senate votes on this legislation this year--frankly, this summer; not late in the fall, not in the winter, not in 2010. Right now is the time for action. President Obama has led us in this effort. He has attached the same sense of urgency to this issue that I know the American people feel. What is it about? Well, it is about an act that a lot of Americans are just hearing about, which goes by a very simple name: the Affordable Health Choices Act. That is the act that is presently before our committee. It does a couple of things. It focuses on some fundamentals to get at that change that should come to the status quo. First, it reduces costs by way of prevention. It is very important. We know that can reduce costs substantially. It also reduces costs by better quality and information technology. It is still hard to believe that when other industries such as banking and insurance and other parts of our economy have moved into the new era of technology that our health care system isn't anywhere near where it has to be to reduce medical errors and to provide better quality. So by focusing on information technology, we can reduce costs. That is in the bill. Also, the bill contemplates rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse-- another area of cost reduction. We know that the big questions on costs will be dealt with in the other committee--the Finance Committee--but there are elements in this bill that, in fact, reduce costs. Secondly, the bill preserves choice, that if you like what you have in your insurance plan and the coverage you have, you can keep it. There is no reason why that should change, and it won't change under this bill. But if you don't like the coverage you have, we want to give you options and we also want to give you an option in coverage if you obviously don't have any health insurance at all. So it does reduce costs, it does preserve choice, and, thirdly, it will ensure quality and affordable care for the American people. I believe, and I think most people in the Senate believe, that one ought to have the option of not just any health care but quality care that is affordable, that you can actually make work in your own budget. So we are going to build on the system we have. We are not going to throw the old system out; we are going to build on the system we have and make it better. We are also going to make sure that in this legislation, we protect the patient-doctor relationship. There is no reason why anyone should get in between those two, and this bill will not do that. Finally--this is a quick summary, I know--we are going to make sure that at long last, a preexisting condition does not prevent you from getting the kind of quality health care you have a right to expect in America today. As we move forward on this legislation, I want to make sure we highlight the fundamental obligation we have, not just in the bill--but especially in the bill--but even beyond this legislation, and that is the obligation we have to get this right for the American people, and to get it right especially for our children. The Presiding Officer knows of the great progress we made this year on children's health insurance. Thank goodness we got that done. Instead of having 6 million kids in America covered by the children's health insurance program, by way of the legislation we passed this year we are going to extend that to almost 11 million kids. That was wonderful. That is a big success and we should all be proud, but it is not enough. We should make sure that the other 5 million children out there who don't have coverage today will get it but especially a child who happens to be in a poor family, a low-income family, or a child with special needs. Here is what the rule ought to be. This is what should happen throughout this process while enacting health care reform, but certainly at the end of the road, so to speak, ideally this fall when we will have a bill the President can sign: The rule ought to be no child worse off, and especially no child who is poor or who has special needs or is disabled. The great line from the Scriptures that talks about a faithful friend--we have heard this over many years in the context of friendship, in the context of sometimes a reading at weddings, but I would like for us today to think about it in the context of our children. This is what the Scripture said: ``A faithful friend is a sturdy shelter''--a great image about what friendship means. There are a lot of us day in and day out, year in and year out, who talk about how important children are to us, that we are advocates for children--and we should be--that we have solidarity with our children, we are going to do everything we can to protect them. In essence, we are saying we are their friend, that those of us who are elected to public office have an obligation to be a friend of and an advocate for our children. Going back to that line from the Scriptures, if we are going to be a faithful friend to children, we better make sure that we provide a sturdy shelter; not just in the context of the obvious in health care. What is more fundamental than that, other than making sure that a child has enough to eat and making sure that child has an opportunity to learn? Other than those two, health care is essential in the life of a child, especially a vulnerable child, whether they are poor or have special needs or both. So if we are faithful friends in the Senate to our children, we better provide that sturdy shelter. We better make sure that at the end of the day, these children are not worse off because of our legislation. I wish to conclude with a thought from an expert--not someone who is just interested in children but someone who has an area of expertise which is probably unmatched. I am speaking of someone who testified last week--a week ago today, it was--in front of our committee. Her name is Dr. Judith Palfrey. She is a pediatrician, a child advocate, and happens to be president-elect of the American Academy of Pediatrics. She provided compelling testimony. I won't go through all of her testimony, but here is something she said which I think has relevance and resonance for the debate we are having on health care. She says--and I quote Dr. Palfrey's testimony: Sometimes we as childhood advocates find it hard to understand why children's needs are such an afterthought; and why, because children are little. Because children are little, policymakers and insurers think that it should take less effort and resources to provide them health care. Because children are little, we think that somehow less effort is required or less resources, less in the way of hard work. Well, none of us believes that, do we? We don't believe that. The health care we provide to our children, the protection, the shelter we provide them should be every bit as significant, every bit as fully resourced as the protection we give to adults. We might disagree about a lot of the details in the health care bill, but I think we all in this Chamber believe that children may be little but in God's eyes they are 7 feet tall and we must treat them accordingly, especially on legislation so significant as legislation on health care reform. So the rule ought to be no child worse off. It is that simple. I believe we can get it right. I believe we can enact health care reform that preserves choice, reduces costs, and enhances quality and affordable coverage for the American people, and that we can make sure every child is no worse off. This is a great challenge. We understand the difficulty of it. This is a great challenge, but it is a challenge worthy of a great nation. It is a challenge that will help us in our continuing struggle, our journey to make this a more perfect Union. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Commitee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 19, 2009, at 10:30 a.m. in room 325 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. So I have more time than I thought I did. That is good news. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Mr. President, I wish to move to a second topic in the remaining time I have with regard to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, but especially in regard to some of the attacks that have been leveled in recent days. In just over 100 days now, the Recovery and Reinvestment Act is already at work doing many things, such as providing immediate relief for hard-hit communities and families; secondly, creating and saving jobs; and thirdly, jump-starting thousands of shovel-ready projects across America. Our economic problems were not created in 100 days and they will not be solved in 100 days or even in a little more than 100 days. But thanks to the Recovery Act, we are meeting the greatest economic challenge in a generation head on. There are early signs of progress across the country. Just a couple of examples of immediate relief measures under the act are providing stability for hard-hit families. First, the Make Work Pay tax credit has increased take-home pay for 95 percent of working families; 95 percent of working families in America are benefiting from that. I note that in Pennsylvania the number is 4.8 million households are benefiting from that tax credit. Second, unemployment benefits have increased by $25 a week. Third, COBRA health insurance premiums have been cut by 65 percent. Fifty-four million older citizens across the country have received $250 in emergency relief checks in the mail. Finally, in this section, food assistance benefits have increased by 13 percent, just when vulnerable Americans need them. Tax credit and other Recovery Act incentives are starting to drive new consumer spending and creating new product demand. Energy efficiency and renewable energy tax credits are providing fresh opportunities for manufacturers and contractors that make or install green products. And the $8,000 first-time home buyer tax credit is proving to be a bright spot for the hard-hit housing industry. The Recovery Act aid to State governments is helping to protect critical safety net programs and saving teaching and law enforcement jobs. Over half of the States have qualified for the State fiscal stabilization funds that are saving teaching jobs and improving education. State governments are making up shortfalls in Medicaid funds, thanks to the Recovery Act. Infrastructure improvement projects funded by the Recovery Act are bringing new jobs to hard-hit communities. Over 20,000 Recovery Act projects across the country have been approved already. In Pennsylvania, just two quick examples: $725 million for highway projects has been allocated and $600,000 for airport grants. The Recovery Act commitments to develop and commercialize new technologies that will be the foundation of the new economy are starting to boost confidence and spur some private sector investment across the country. Businesses are converting crisis to opportunity because of the promise they see with the Recovery Act. The Recovery Act is already making life a little easier for families and businesses like these, and work is just getting started. Last week, President Obama and Vice President Biden announced the Roadmap to Recovery, 10 new major projects that will define the next 3 months of the Recovery Act. Here is what the 10 are: help 1,129 health centers in 50 States and 8 territories provide expanded service to approximately 300,000 patients; begin work on 107 national parks; start rehabilitation and improvement projects at 98 airports and over 1,500 highway locations throughout the country; fund 135,000 education jobs, including teachers, principals, and support staff; begin improvements at 90 veterans medical centers across 38 States; hire or keep on the job approximately 5,000 law enforcement officers; start 200 new waste and water systems projects in rural America; begin or accelerate cleanup work at 20 Superfund sites from the National Priority List; create 125,000 summer youth jobs; finally, begin 2,300 construction and rehabilitation projects at 359 military facilities across the country. Billions of dollars in Recovery Act programs that will shape the economy of the 21st century will launch in the weeks and months ahead-- for example, $8 billion for high-speed rail; $4.7 billion to connect more Americans to broadband Internet; $4.5 billion to make a nationwide smart energy grid a reality; $800 million to accelerate the use of biofuels and bring them to market; and $300 million to expand the Nation's fleet of alternative-fuel vehicles through the Clean Cities Program. These investments will get our economy moving today in a way that will change our economy for tomorrow. The road to recovery is long and our economic problems won't be solved overnight, but with every dollar invested and every project started under the Recovery Act, we are getting one step closer. I will conclude with one further comment. Just as was the case when we voted on the Recovery Act, it was a choice between are you for the Recovery Act or for the status quo? Fortunately, enough of us voted for it so we could jump-start the economy, get it out of the ditch and back on the road to recovery. We still have a long way to go, and there is a lot more work to do, but so far the news is positive in communities across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and I know in your home State of Illinois, Mr. President, and across the country. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY. I also ask unanimous consent to be permitted to speak for what I hope will be 20 minutes.

Mr. CASEY. I thank the Senator. (The remarks of Mrs. LINCOLN pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 186 are located in today's Record under ``Submissions of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. CASEY. Finally, I will have two separate subject matters I wish to cover. Mr. President, I didn't plan on responding to my colleague from Kansas, and I won't today, but I still think on health care we have a long way to go. There is still a lot of work to be done in the committee I am a member of, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and an awful lot of work to do still in the Finance Committee. So we will leave that for another day. But in a general sense, I think what we are all trying to do--I know my colleagues on the Democratic side are trying to do this--is to make sure that at the end of this debate, the bill that emerges from the Congress has a couple of basic principles. One is it gives people choice in their health care. If you like what you have, you get to keep it, and if you don't like what you have, you have a choice; and that the bill also reflects a cost reduction which is essential if we are going to move forward; and finally, that we provide the kind of quality, affordable health care that every American has a right to expect that we would try to provide in this bill. If we keep that in mind, I think we can get to the right place. We have an awful lot of work to do, and I think there are some conclusory statements that have been made in the last couple of days which don't reflect the reality, which is we have a lot of proposals, we have draft bills, but we don't have a final product yet, so we have a way to go. Iranian Elections Mr. President, the first subject I wish to discuss is the Iranian elections. I wish to convey some brief remarks on the remarkable events we have been witnessing unfolding in Iran in the last couple of days. It is too soon to tell what will happen. We do not know if Iran's brittle theocratic regime will hear out the voices of reform emanating in such powerful fashion from the streets of Iran today. We do not know if a credible investigation of serious electoral irregularities will occur, but I am confident that the events of this past weekend will be recorded in the history books as a major milestone for the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people. While the hard-liners who continue to rule Iran today may further entrench their power in the coming days, they are only planting the seeds for their ultimate defeat by their response to the democratic voices with the kind of force and suppression we have seen play out on television. It is a promising sign that Iran's supreme leader has called upon the all-powerful Guardian Council to review the electoral results and assess the claims of serious irregularities, including vote rigging and ballot fraud, in the national election. However, we should not get our hopes raised that justice is imminent. In the last Iranian Presidential election in 2005, there were also serious questions of fraud raised after Mr. Ahmadinejad came out of nowhere to win the Presidency following a runoff vote. Yet the final results of that investigation were never published, and thereafter Mr. Ahmadinejad's declared victory stood firm. Because of that precedent, I am skeptical that the Iranian regime will engage in an honest review of this election count. President Obama and his senior national security team have refrained from extensive commentary on the election in recent days. That is as it should be. The U.S. Government should not give the Iranian regime any flimsy rationales for further crackdown on protestors and reformist leaders. However, administration officials, led by Vice President Biden, have made clear that the strategy of diplomatic engagement with Iran's leadership to bring a peaceful resolution of Iran's nuclear program will continue, regardless of who may comprise that leadership or how they may have assumed power. That, I believe, is the right strategy. We must deal with Iran as it is, not as we may wish it to be. For far too long, the United States deprived itself of the power of its diplomacy on the mistaken insistence that Iran agree to a set of preconditions before talks could even commence. Talking to your enemy can never be viewed as a concession. The United States spoke to the Soviet Union during the worst excesses of the Cold War, but diplomacy cannot be the only option that the United States pursues with Iran. The President knows this and has reaffirmed that other options are open to the United States on multiple occasions. Any effective strategy toward Iran must offer the regime a clear choice when it comes to its nuclear program, and here is the choice; it is either one or the other. Come into compliance with the multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions and reap the benefits of economic engagement and warmer diplomatic ties, choice No. 1. Or choice No. 2 for the Iranian regime: Face continued economic sanctions and international isolation that will steadily worsen if Iran continues to engage in illicit nuclear activities. It is either one or the other, and the regime has a choice to make before the world. Effective diplomacy is successful if it can fully convey that choice to the decisionmakers in Iran. The Congress can also play a useful role here in elucidating the consequences Iran faces when it makes its choice on its nuclear program. Some might call it the ``good cop, bad cop'' strategy; I simply prefer to call it diplomatic leverage that our negotiators can employ if and when they do sit down at the table with Iranian representatives. For those reasons, I am proud to have joined my colleague Sam Brownback in introducing the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act. This legislation would authorize State and local governments as they see appropriate to direct divestment from, and prevent future investment in, companies that hold investments of $20 million or more in Iran's energy sector. There is a growing divestment movement across the country in response to Iran's accelerating nuclear program, its support of Hamas and Hezbollah, and hateful statements against Israel perpetrated by its President and others in Iran's senior leadership. Unfortunately, the Federal courts have ruled that divestment actions undertaken against a single nation may not predict the President's constitutional authority to enjoy exclusive authority over our Nation's diplomatic relations; thus, State and local governments undertake divestment measures with some legal jeopardy. The Justice Department has taken legal action against State and local governments in cases involving other nations. This act, the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, protects the rights of State and local governments to ensure that their pension funds and other investment funds are not invested in companies that do business with a regime such as Iran. It is carefully targeted to focus only on financial ties with Iran's energy sector, to hit Iran where it is economically most vulnerable. The bill includes a sunset provision to lift this authorization once the President certifies that Iran has ceased providing support for acts of international terrorism and has ceased the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. I am proud to have assumed the lead Democratic role on this legislation, taking over for President Obama, then Senator Obama, who served in the lead role when he was in the Congress. Secondly, let me also take a brief moment to comment on the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of which I am proud to be a cosponsor with the majority of the Senate. The bill would clarify existing legal ambiguity by authorizing the President to sanction foreign firms involved in supplying Iran with refined gasoline and/or assisting Iran with increasing its refining capacity. Iran is forced to import as much as 40 percent of its annual gasoline consumption due to the fact that much of its refining infrastructure was destroyed during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. Economic sanctions in place since then have limited outside foreign investment. Targeting Iranian gasoline consumption is a promising venue for increasing our leverage on Iran's leadership. The Iranian people, I believe, may question why the regime prioritizes a nuclear program condemned by the international community at the cost of serious gasoline shortages in Iran. The images in recent days have been stirring. Just yesterday we witnessed a procession of hundreds of thousands of Iranians, both young people dressed in modern attire and elderly women wearing traditional veils, marching in silence throughout downtown Teheran. Indeed, whenever a chant or shout emerged from the crowd, it was quickly hushed by the crowd, seeking to avoid any provocation for the riot police standing watch to move and break up the march. It is easy to forget, with all the incendiary rhetoric from leaders such as Mr. Ahmadinejad, that the Iranian people remain fundamentally pro-American and envy our democracy and personal liberties. This week is a dark moment for the Iranian people as their legitimate aspirations for greater reform have been apparently sidetracked by the regime. But I am optimistic on their future and look forward to the day that the United States and Iran can once again be at peace and enjoy mutual respect for and with one another. Mr. President, I would inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. S. Res. 170 is cosponsored by Senators Dodd, Rockefeller, Brown, Whitehouse, and Sanders. I will highlight some of the features of it. First, it starts with a recognition that the Medicaid Program is a cornerstone of the Nation's health insurance infrastructure. It notes in the resolution that Medicaid covers a quarter of all children in the country--one-quarter--and half of all poor children. It notes as well that Medicaid has been shown to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in health care and provides coverage for two out of every five African- American and Hispanic children. Medicaid is a comprehensive benefit package. It provides developmental assessments for infants and young children. It has care coordination benefits in support of at-risk children, and Medicaid's administrative spending is lower than that through private insurance. Here is the end of the resolution, and I am summarizing here: It is the intent of this resolution to say that the Nation's health care system shall benefit all children--all children--and that no child shall be worse off at the end of this debate. Low-income children should not be moved into a health care exchange system that could disrupt and diminish their benefits. That is S. Res. 170. I believe it is critically important to emphasize this idea, that no child should be worse off as a result of health care reform--not a single child--and in particular, those who have special needs or who happen to be poor. We know from our research that children are not small adults. They have different challenges. They have developmental and health care needs that are very different from adults. The challenges they have, the problems they encounter can be exacerbated if children face economic challenges or have any kind of special needs. These needs must be met, and if they are not met, the whole trajectory for the future of that child will be changed for the worse. Let me say in conclusion, we have seen throughout our history that there are some people who cannot do something on their own, that they need the help of a program, they need the help of a government, and thank goodness we made the determination a long time ago that our health care system is part of that equation. When I think about health care and when we think about the health care of children, no matter what income level their family happens to be in, but especially if they are poor or have special needs, and you think of the love of a mother, with the kind of love that a mother provides to a child, there are so many things that one mother can provide for her child. She can help with that child's education. She can provide nurturing and care and love to make sure that child develops in the way we would hope. She can even help somewhat in that child's health care. But no matter how much a mother loves her child, no matter how skilled she is, no matter how dedicated she is to the welfare of her child, and no matter how much she loves that child, she cannot--cannot--provide the kind of protections that health insurance provides and the kind of medical attention that a good hospital or a good doctor or a good health care professional can provide. So we have a choice. We can have health reform legislation, and everyone will pat each other on the back and we will all be happy we got it done. That would be wonderful. But if we get this bill passed and we have fallen short with regard to our children, especially those who are poor and have special needs, I think we will have failed not only those children, of course, but we will have failed the obligation we have to make sure that every child comes through this with the kind of protections and the kind of help they should have a right to expect, and that that mother can have a sense that this country, this government has made a full commitment--not a partial commitment but a full commitment--to children. Let us, as we go forward, remember the love that a mother has for her child and the limitations--no matter how much that mother loves that child and what she is able to do--that we must help her with in this debate. Let us not forget, and let us make sure that the legislation we pass on health care reform has as one of its ironclad promises: no child worse off. Mr. President, I yield the floor and would note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak of a subject that is on the minds of so many Americans. It is also the subject of a lot of attention and work here in Washington, and that issue is health care. I won't try today to cover every aspect of it and to cover all of the details that are being debated here in Washington, but I rise to begin a series of speeches that I and others will be giving on this topic. I don't think I need to recite the challenge the people of Pennsylvania and America face when it comes to their health care. I do believe there is some consensus, not only here in Washington but around the country, about what we have to do. We have to take action, and as we take action, we have to be very clear about what we tell people and what is in the legislation: that if you like the health care you have, you can keep it; if you don't like what you have or you don't have any health care, we are going to put a bill in front of the American people--in front of the Senate and the House, and then legislation before the American people--which will allow that kind of choice. I believe there is consensus about that. There is consensus about some fundamental keys to reform. No. 1 is the question of cost reduction. We can't get through this process and not get a handle on costs, especially for the future. No. 2: I think there is a great consensus about choice, preserving the kinds of choices people have now and in fact enhancing the choices that people have in their health care decisions. No. 3: To ensure quality, affordable health care for all Americans. The nature of that issue is that we can build on our current system, but that we have too many people--as many as almost 50 million--who are uninsured. There are a lot of people to thank here in Washington for the work that has been done already. I know we are a long way off. We have a lot more to do. There are weeks and weeks of work still ahead of us, but a few bear mentioning. Obviously, the President of the United States, President Obama, has made this a central issue of his Presidency and has worked very hard and has continued to make this a priority. We want to commend his leadership. It is essential. We cannot move this legislation without his help. Senator Kennedy, who has worked on this issue for more than four decades, I guess, now, has given tremendous leadership and inspiration. Whether he is here physically or whether he is not, he is providing that and has provided that for the American people for a generation on health care. Senator Baucus, the head of the Finance Committee, has worked not just months but years on this. Especially in the last year, in the last 6 months, he has been working very hard to get it right on that essential committee. Senator Dodd has stepped into the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee leadership role because Senator Kennedy hasn't always been able to be here because of his own health challenges. I also wish to commend the bipartisan spirit that I think is evident on both sides of the aisle. People want to get this done, and they want to get it done in a bipartisan manner. What I will speak about today is an aspect of this challenge which I think is not getting enough attention and enough focus and, therefore, may not get enough resolution in the legislation, and that is the issue of what happens to our children, especially children who are poor or those with disabilities, those with special needs. I believe the theme--not just the theme and not just the goal but the ironclad promise that we should make when we talk about reforming health care and getting legislation passed--the ironclad promise should be as follows: No child worse off. No child in America should be worse off at the end of this process, especially poor children and especially those who have special needs, those with a disability. Despite all of the great work--and I could cite a long list of people to thank for children's health insurance--the legislation that was passed in the 1990s and the reauthorization is great news: 6 million kids covered, plus 4 million more who will be covered, so almost 10 million--almost 11 million, actually--more than 10 million children are covered by that. That is wonderful. We should be happy about that. We got that done this year. Here is the problem: There are still 5 million more who are not covered. So I rise today to speak about coverage and a focus on those children. Here is what I believe when it comes to children in our society. I believe every child born in America is born with a light inside them. For some children, the reach of that light will be boundless. It will be scintillating. You won't be able to see it, it will be so bright, because of that child's potential or because of his or her circumstances, but their potential and, therefore, the light within them is boundless. For some other children, that light will be a little more limited because of circumstance, or because of other limitations they may have. No matter what the situation that child is in, no matter how brightly or not so brightly that light is shining, we have to make sure we are there for them, especially when it comes to health care. So I believe that light has to continue to shine, and one of the reasons I am so grateful for the work that has been done already is that in our committee, we have made children a priority. The Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has not only produced a bill already--it is from one side of the aisle, the Democratic side; we are working with our Republican colleagues now--but the Affordable Health Choices Act is now on the table for debate. We are working on it today, hours and hours yesterday and today, and we will continue that with our Republican colleagues. There are a number of provisions in there for children that speak directly to this concern I have. Senator Dodd has shown tremendous leadership on this issue of helping our children through this legislation. But I believe we have to focus the attention of the country on the challenge, and that is why I have introduced S. Res. 170. I ask unanimous consent that the entire resolution be printed in the Record as a part of my remarks.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Green Transportation Efficiency Act of 2009. This bill would establish a voucher program in the Department of Energy to encourage American consumers to trade in their older, less fuel-efficient vehicles for new, more fuel-efficient vehicles, including motorcycles. This act is very similar to other ``cash for clunkers'' bills offered in the House and Senate in that it will help stimulate the economy by providing a much needed boost to our struggling automobile industry, but will go a step further by bolstering the U.S. motorcycle industry as well. After 14 straight years of growth, sales of motorcycles in the U.S. declined eight percent in 2007, and, 10 percent in 2008. Due in large part to the downturn in our economy, motorcycle sales have dropped 30 percent in the first quarter of 2009, according to the Motorcycle Industry Council. In my home State of Pennsylvania, Harley- Davidson has had to cut production and reduce its work force as a result of these declines in motorcycle sales. Established in 1973, the Harley-Davidson assembly plant in York, PA, is the company's largest manufacturing facility and is the third largest employer in York County, PA, employing over 2,200 people. It has been reported that it is probably the leanest time that Harley has faced since the company went public in 1986. Harley-Davidson, like the auto makers and other manufacturing sectors, is fighting hard to maintain its workforce and to continue to produce a high quality, American-made product during these tough economic times. However, the specter of further reductions in motorcycle sales could lead to further job losses in my State, a State already hard hit by the current economic crisis. Indeed, the economic impact of the American motorcycle industry also extends far beyond the direct employment at facilities such as the Harley-Davidson manufacturing plants in Pennsylvania, Missouri, or Wisconsin. Many of the same parts suppliers that provide the critical supply chain for our American auto manufacturers, in States such as Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and many others, also rely upon motorcycle manufacturers as critical customers. These parts manufacturers and suppliers will also be aided by increased motorcycle sales. The effect of increased motorcycle sales will be immediate and meaningful. For example, Harley-Davidson utilizes ``Just In Time'' manufacturing principles, meaning they do not hold parts inventories. So, every new bike ordered triggers new orders for parts--there is very little elasticity in the supply chain, so the economic benefit down the line is immediate. Finally, in terms of economic activity, this act recognizes the challenges faced by our auto dealerships and the best way to help those dealerships is to encourage the purchasing of new, more fuel-efficient vehicles. The same principle applies to our motorcycle dealers. In addition to helping to spur economic recovery and protect manufacturing jobs in Pennsylvania and other parts of the country where motorcycles and motorcycle parts are manufactured and assembled, the inclusion of motorcycles in this act will help America move away from its dependence on foreign sources of oil. Motorcycles are inherently fuel efficient. Average miles-per-gallon for motorcycles ranges from 40-50 MPG, even higher for smaller bikes. Allowing consumers the option of trading in their older, inefficient vehicles for newer, more fuel efficient cars, trucks, and motorcycles will help the Nation achieve the dual goals of reducing our demand for imported oil and reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases--both critical components of our energy future. Just as importantly, the act will provide a much needed jump start to the auto and motorcycle industries at a time when their sales are at historic lows, plants are closing, and jobs are being lost. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of this Act so that consumers are given a strong signal from Washington to trade in their older, inefficient vehicles and purchase new, high-fuel-efficient cars, trucks, or motorcycles. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Green Transportation Efficiency Act of 2009. This bill would establish a voucher program in the Department of Energy to encourage American consumers to trade in their older, less fuel-efficient vehicles for new, more fuel-efficient vehicles, including motorcycles. This act is very similar to other ``cash for clunkers'' bills offered in the House and Senate in that it will help stimulate the economy by providing a much needed boost to our struggling automobile industry, but will go a step further by bolstering the U.S. motorcycle industry as well. After 14 straight years of growth, sales of motorcycles in the U.S. declined eight percent in 2007, and, 10 percent in 2008. Due in large part to the downturn in our economy, motorcycle sales have dropped 30 percent in the first quarter of 2009, according to the Motorcycle Industry Council. In my home State of Pennsylvania, Harley- Davidson has had to cut production and reduce its work force as a result of these declines in motorcycle sales. Established in 1973, the Harley-Davidson assembly plant in York, PA, is the company's largest manufacturing facility and is the third largest employer in York County, PA, employing over 2,200 people. It has been reported that it is probably the leanest time that Harley has faced since the company went public in 1986. Harley-Davidson, like the auto makers and other manufacturing sectors, is fighting hard to maintain its workforce and to continue to produce a high quality, American-made product during these tough economic times. However, the specter of further reductions in motorcycle sales could lead to further job losses in my State, a State already hard hit by the current economic crisis. Indeed, the economic impact of the American motorcycle industry also extends far beyond the direct employment at facilities such as the Harley-Davidson manufacturing plants in Pennsylvania, Missouri, or Wisconsin. Many of the same parts suppliers that provide the critical supply chain for our American auto manufacturers, in States such as Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and many others, also rely upon motorcycle manufacturers as critical customers. These parts manufacturers and suppliers will also be aided by increased motorcycle sales. The effect of increased motorcycle sales will be immediate and meaningful. For example, Harley-Davidson utilizes ``Just In Time'' manufacturing principles, meaning they do not hold parts inventories. So, every new bike ordered triggers new orders for parts--there is very little elasticity in the supply chain, so the economic benefit down the line is immediate. Finally, in terms of economic activity, this act recognizes the challenges faced by our auto dealerships and the best way to help those dealerships is to encourage the purchasing of new, more fuel-efficient vehicles. The same principle applies to our motorcycle dealers. In addition to helping to spur economic recovery and protect manufacturing jobs in Pennsylvania and other parts of the country where motorcycles and motorcycle parts are manufactured and assembled, the inclusion of motorcycles in this act will help America move away from its dependence on foreign sources of oil. Motorcycles are inherently fuel efficient. Average miles-per-gallon for motorcycles ranges from 40-50 MPG, even higher for smaller bikes. Allowing consumers the option of trading in their older, inefficient vehicles for newer, more fuel efficient cars, trucks, and motorcycles will help the Nation achieve the dual goals of reducing our demand for imported oil and reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases--both critical components of our energy future. Just as importantly, the act will provide a much needed jump start to the auto and motorcycle industries at a time when their sales are at historic lows, plants are closing, and jobs are being lost. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of this Act so that consumers are given a strong signal from Washington to trade in their older, inefficient vehicles and purchase new, high-fuel-efficient cars, trucks, or motorcycles. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill with Senator Bennet of Colorado, called the Paperless Enrollment for School Meals Act. Senator Bennet and I wrote this legislation because of our mutual interest in increasing the efficiency of the school lunch program both in terms of getting meals to kids who need them and lowering program costs to school districts. Congressman Fattah and Congresswoman Schwartz are leading a companion bill on the House side. Our bill creates a national program that is modeled after a pilot project that has been used in Philadelphia for the past 18 years. The Philadelphia program provides free lunch to all kids in schools that have over 75 percent of the students eligible for free lunches. The Philadelphia program also eliminates burdensome paper applications and replaces them with a periodic population survey that allows the U.S. Department of Agriculture to determine the reimbursement rate to the School District of Philadelphia for the meals they serve. Modernization of the school lunch program is one of my top priorities when the Senate reauthorizes the Child Nutrition Act later this fall. The current system of requiring families to fill out paper applications at the beginning of each school year, having the school district collect and certify those applications, and then having USDA use the applications combined with the amount of meals served to determine a reimbursement rate is inefficient and outdated. Not only are paper applications inefficient, they are inaccurate. It is much more accurate to compile socio-economic data and survey populations to determine eligibility. We have anecdotal evidence of this fact in Philadelphia, where we have dramatically increased participation in school lunch through the pilot project that eliminates yearly paper applications, thereby eliminating stigma for enrollment, language barriers, and other factors that prevent eligible families from completing paper forms. There is another way that our bill removes the stigma associated with free lunches. By providing free lunches for all students in schools that have a very high percentage of eligible children, no one is embarrassed to get their free lunch in the lunch line. Every student gets the same meal, so no knows who is getting free lunches or reduced lunches. This is a very simple policy change that can get more kids eating school lunches- kids who might otherwise go hungry that day because they don't have food at home. Senator Bennet and I have been working on this issue for months both separately and now collaboratively with our new legislation. And we know that this is just a starting point. We have introduced this legislation to start a dialogue with Chairman Harkin and the other members of the Committee on Agriculture Nutrition and Forestry along with our colleagues at USDA. I think that there is a lot of energy around the ideas of paperless applications and universal meals included in our bill. I encourage all Senators to support this legislation and the principles of the national program Senator Bennet and I have outlined and save our schools money while increasing access to quality school meals for the kids who need them the most. Mr. President, I ask unanimous ocnsent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill with Senator Bennet of Colorado, called the Paperless Enrollment for School Meals Act. Senator Bennet and I wrote this legislation because of our mutual interest in increasing the efficiency of the school lunch program both in terms of getting meals to kids who need them and lowering program costs to school districts. Congressman Fattah and Congresswoman Schwartz are leading a companion bill on the House side. Our bill creates a national program that is modeled after a pilot project that has been used in Philadelphia for the past 18 years. The Philadelphia program provides free lunch to all kids in schools that have over 75 percent of the students eligible for free lunches. The Philadelphia program also eliminates burdensome paper applications and replaces them with a periodic population survey that allows the U.S. Department of Agriculture to determine the reimbursement rate to the School District of Philadelphia for the meals they serve. Modernization of the school lunch program is one of my top priorities when the Senate reauthorizes the Child Nutrition Act later this fall. The current system of requiring families to fill out paper applications at the beginning of each school year, having the school district collect and certify those applications, and then having USDA use the applications combined with the amount of meals served to determine a reimbursement rate is inefficient and outdated. Not only are paper applications inefficient, they are inaccurate. It is much more accurate to compile socio-economic data and survey populations to determine eligibility. We have anecdotal evidence of this fact in Philadelphia, where we have dramatically increased participation in school lunch through the pilot project that eliminates yearly paper applications, thereby eliminating stigma for enrollment, language barriers, and other factors that prevent eligible families from completing paper forms. There is another way that our bill removes the stigma associated with free lunches. By providing free lunches for all students in schools that have a very high percentage of eligible children, no one is embarrassed to get their free lunch in the lunch line. Every student gets the same meal, so no knows who is getting free lunches or reduced lunches. This is a very simple policy change that can get more kids eating school lunches- kids who might otherwise go hungry that day because they don't have food at home. Senator Bennet and I have been working on this issue for months both separately and now collaboratively with our new legislation. And we know that this is just a starting point. We have introduced this legislation to start a dialogue with Chairman Harkin and the other members of the Committee on Agriculture Nutrition and Forestry along with our colleagues at USDA. I think that there is a lot of energy around the ideas of paperless applications and universal meals included in our bill. I encourage all Senators to support this legislation and the principles of the national program Senator Bennet and I have outlined and save our schools money while increasing access to quality school meals for the kids who need them the most. Mr. President, I ask unanimous ocnsent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals, FRAC, Act along with my colleague, Senator Schumer, that protects drinking water and public health from the risks associated with an oil and gas extraction process called hydraulic fracturing. Specifically, our bill does two things. First, it repeals an exemption to the Safe Drinking Water Act that was granted to oil and gas companies four years ago. Second, it requires oil and gas companies to publicly disclose the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing. The regulation of hydraulic fracturing under the Safe Drinking Water Act is supported by 77 groups, including 14 groups from Pennsylvania. The oil and gas industry uses hydraulic fracturing in 90 percent of wells. The process, which is also called ``fracking,'' involves injecting tens of thousands of gallons of water mixed with sand and chemical additives deep into the rock under extremely high pressure. The pressure breaks open the rock releasing trapped natural gas, which is then captured. Fracking often occurs near underground sources of drinking water. Unfortunately, a provision included in the 2005 Energy Policy Act exempted hydraulic fracturing from compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. The oil and gas industry is the only industry to have this exemption. The Casey-Schumer legislation is extremely important to people living in Pennsylvania, especially those living in communities along a geological formation called the Marcellus Shale. The Marcellus is a geological formation covering 34 million acres extending from southern New York, through central and western Pennsylvania, into the eastern half of Ohio and across most of West Virginia. The deepest layer of the Marcellus formation--the Marcellus Shale--contains a significant amount of natural gas trapped in deep rock formations up to 9,000 feet below ground. Last year, a professor at Penn State estimated that there was 168 million cubic feet of natural gas in the Marcellus Shale. In the industry it is what is known as a ``Super Giant gas field.'' It is enough natural gas to provide for the entire country for 7 years. This vast amount of natural gas combined with a more complete knowledge of the natural fractures in the Marcellus Shale through which the gas can be easily extracted, has led to what Pennsylvanians are calling a gas rush. As I have mentioned, fracking involves injecting water mixed with chemicals. My major concern is that the chemicals added to the water to create fracking fluids are highly toxic. We're talking about chemicals like formaldehyde, benzene, and toluene. These chemicals are injected right below underground drinking water. This is especially important to Pennsylvania because our state has the second highest number of private wells for drinking water in the nation, second only to Michigan. Three million Pennsylvanians are dependent on private wells to provide safe drinking water to their homes. So massive drilling to get to the natural gas in the Marcellus Shale is not required to comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act, but drilling is happening right next to drinking water supplies. You can see why Pennsylvanians are concerned about their future access to safe drinking water. Now, the oil and gas industry would have you believe that there is no threat to drinking water from hydraulic fracturing. But the fact is we are already seeing cases in Pennsylvania, Colorado, Virginia, West Virginia, Alabama, Wyoming, Ohio, Arkansas, Utah, Texas, and New Mexico where residents have become ill or groundwater has become contaminated after hydraulic fracturing operations began in the area. This is not simply anecdotal evidence; scientists have found enough evidence to raise concerns as well. In a recent letter supporting our bill, 23 health professionals and scientists wrote the following: . . . Oil and gas operations are known to release substances into the environment that are known to be very hazardous to human health, including benzene, arsenic, mercury, hydrogen sulfide, and radioactive materials. The demonstrated health effects caused by these substances include cancers, central nervous system damage, skin and eye irritation, and lung diseases. For example, fluids used in the hydraulic fracturing process may contain toxic chemicals such as 2-butoxyethanol, formaldehyde, sodium hydroxide, glycol ethers, and naphthalene. For these reasons, we support regulation of hydraulic fracturing under the Safe Drinking Water Act and the disclosure of all chemical constituents in hydraulic fracturing fluids to public agencies, including the disclosure of constituent formulas in cases of medical need. Moreover, we support full regulation of stormwater runoff, which can pollute drinking water supplies, under the Clean Water Act. There are growing reports of individuals living near oil and gas operations who suffer illnesses that are linked to these activities, yet there has been no systemic attempt to gather the necessary data, establish appropriate monitoring, analyze health exposure or assess risk related to any of these activities. This should be done, in addition to full Health Impact Assessments to inform future planning and policy efforts. In Dimock, Pennsylvania, we have a recent example of the risks involved with hydraulic fracturing. On New Year's Day, Norma Fiorentino's drinking water well exploded. It literally blew up. Stray methane leaked and migrated upward through the rock and into the aquifer as natural gas deposits were drilled nearby. An investigation by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania shows that a spark created when the pump in the well house turned on may have led to the explosion. The blast cracked in half the several-thousand-pound concrete slab at the drilling pad on Ms. Fiorentino's property and tossed it aside. Fortunately, no one was hurt in the explosion. But throughout the town, several drinking water wells have exploded and nine wells have been found to contain so much natural gas that one homeowner was advised to open a window if he plans to take a bath. Tests of the well water show high amounts of aluminum and iron, which leads researchers to believe that drilling fluids are contaminating the water along with the gas. So this is a real concern. We are talking about serious implications if we don't develop the Marcellus Shale carefully and responsibly. I would point out that Pennsylvania has a long history of developing our natural resources to power the region and the nation. In fact, Pennsylvania is home to the Drake Well near Titusville, Pennsylvania, which celebrates its 150th anniversary this year. The Drake Well was the first commercial oil well in the United States and it launched the modern petroleum industry. In addition to oil, Western Pennsylvania has long produced natural gas. Pennsylvania also mines coal which we use to provide electricity to many of our neighboring states. Pennsylvanians are proud of the contributions we have made to the growth of our nation. Contributions that were made because we developed our abundant natural resources. But we also bear the burden of some environmental legacies, most created in previous generations when we were not as concerned with responsible development. We have old natural gas wells that were not capped and leak methane into homes in Versailles, PA. We have acid mine drainage that we spend millions of dollars every year to try and remediate. These examples are the lessons from which we need to learn. Pennsylvania will develop the natural gas in the Marcellus Shale. We are doing it right now, and we will see more drilling over the next few years. But we must develop the Marcellus Shale using the best environmental practices to protect our communities and our state. That is why I am introducing the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act. This legislation will ensure that hydraulic fracturing does not unnecessarily jeopardize our groundwater. There are affordable alternatives that oil and gas companies can use so that they are not risking contaminating drinking water wells with potentially hazardous chemicals. I think Norma Fiorentino from Dimock, Pennsylvania, summed it up best when she told a reporter, ``You can't buy a good well.'' So I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation and ensure that our groundwater is protected as we responsibly develop our natural resources.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals, FRAC, Act along with my colleague, Senator Schumer, that protects drinking water and public health from the risks associated with an oil and gas extraction process called hydraulic fracturing. Specifically, our bill does two things. First, it repeals an exemption to the Safe Drinking Water Act that was granted to oil and gas companies four years ago. Second, it requires oil and gas companies to publicly disclose the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing. The regulation of hydraulic fracturing under the Safe Drinking Water Act is supported by 77 groups, including 14 groups from Pennsylvania. The oil and gas industry uses hydraulic fracturing in 90 percent of wells. The process, which is also called ``fracking,'' involves injecting tens of thousands of gallons of water mixed with sand and chemical additives deep into the rock under extremely high pressure. The pressure breaks open the rock releasing trapped natural gas, which is then captured. Fracking often occurs near underground sources of drinking water. Unfortunately, a provision included in the 2005 Energy Policy Act exempted hydraulic fracturing from compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. The oil and gas industry is the only industry to have this exemption. The Casey-Schumer legislation is extremely important to people living in Pennsylvania, especially those living in communities along a geological formation called the Marcellus Shale. The Marcellus is a geological formation covering 34 million acres extending from southern New York, through central and western Pennsylvania, into the eastern half of Ohio and across most of West Virginia. The deepest layer of the Marcellus formation--the Marcellus Shale--contains a significant amount of natural gas trapped in deep rock formations up to 9,000 feet below ground. Last year, a professor at Penn State estimated that there was 168 million cubic feet of natural gas in the Marcellus Shale. In the industry it is what is known as a ``Super Giant gas field.'' It is enough natural gas to provide for the entire country for 7 years. This vast amount of natural gas combined with a more complete knowledge of the natural fractures in the Marcellus Shale through which the gas can be easily extracted, has led to what Pennsylvanians are calling a gas rush. As I have mentioned, fracking involves injecting water mixed with chemicals. My major concern is that the chemicals added to the water to create fracking fluids are highly toxic. We're talking about chemicals like formaldehyde, benzene, and toluene. These chemicals are injected right below underground drinking water. This is especially important to Pennsylvania because our state has the second highest number of private wells for drinking water in the nation, second only to Michigan. Three million Pennsylvanians are dependent on private wells to provide safe drinking water to their homes. So massive drilling to get to the natural gas in the Marcellus Shale is not required to comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act, but drilling is happening right next to drinking water supplies. You can see why Pennsylvanians are concerned about their future access to safe drinking water. Now, the oil and gas industry would have you believe that there is no threat to drinking water from hydraulic fracturing. But the fact is we are already seeing cases in Pennsylvania, Colorado, Virginia, West Virginia, Alabama, Wyoming, Ohio, Arkansas, Utah, Texas, and New Mexico where residents have become ill or groundwater has become contaminated after hydraulic fracturing operations began in the area. This is not simply anecdotal evidence; scientists have found enough evidence to raise concerns as well. In a recent letter supporting our bill, 23 health professionals and scientists wrote the following: . . . Oil and gas operations are known to release substances into the environment that are known to be very hazardous to human health, including benzene, arsenic, mercury, hydrogen sulfide, and radioactive materials. The demonstrated health effects caused by these substances include cancers, central nervous system damage, skin and eye irritation, and lung diseases. For example, fluids used in the hydraulic fracturing process may contain toxic chemicals such as 2-butoxyethanol, formaldehyde, sodium hydroxide, glycol ethers, and naphthalene. For these reasons, we support regulation of hydraulic fracturing under the Safe Drinking Water Act and the disclosure of all chemical constituents in hydraulic fracturing fluids to public agencies, including the disclosure of constituent formulas in cases of medical need. Moreover, we support full regulation of stormwater runoff, which can pollute drinking water supplies, under the Clean Water Act. There are growing reports of individuals living near oil and gas operations who suffer illnesses that are linked to these activities, yet there has been no systemic attempt to gather the necessary data, establish appropriate monitoring, analyze health exposure or assess risk related to any of these activities. This should be done, in addition to full Health Impact Assessments to inform future planning and policy efforts. In Dimock, Pennsylvania, we have a recent example of the risks involved with hydraulic fracturing. On New Year's Day, Norma Fiorentino's drinking water well exploded. It literally blew up. Stray methane leaked and migrated upward through the rock and into the aquifer as natural gas deposits were drilled nearby. An investigation by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania shows that a spark created when the pump in the well house turned on may have led to the explosion. The blast cracked in half the several-thousand-pound concrete slab at the drilling pad on Ms. Fiorentino's property and tossed it aside. Fortunately, no one was hurt in the explosion. But throughout the town, several drinking water wells have exploded and nine wells have been found to contain so much natural gas that one homeowner was advised to open a window if he plans to take a bath. Tests of the well water show high amounts of aluminum and iron, which leads researchers to believe that drilling fluids are contaminating the water along with the gas. So this is a real concern. We are talking about serious implications if we don't develop the Marcellus Shale carefully and responsibly. I would point out that Pennsylvania has a long history of developing our natural resources to power the region and the nation. In fact, Pennsylvania is home to the Drake Well near Titusville, Pennsylvania, which celebrates its 150th anniversary this year. The Drake Well was the first commercial oil well in the United States and it launched the modern petroleum industry. In addition to oil, Western Pennsylvania has long produced natural gas. Pennsylvania also mines coal which we use to provide electricity to many of our neighboring states. Pennsylvanians are proud of the contributions we have made to the growth of our nation. Contributions that were made because we developed our abundant natural resources. But we also bear the burden of some environmental legacies, most created in previous generations when we were not as concerned with responsible development. We have old natural gas wells that were not capped and leak methane into homes in Versailles, PA. We have acid mine drainage that we spend millions of dollars every year to try and remediate. These examples are the lessons from which we need to learn. Pennsylvania will develop the natural gas in the Marcellus Shale. We are doing it right now, and we will see more drilling over the next few years. But we must develop the Marcellus Shale using the best environmental practices to protect our communities and our state. That is why I am introducing the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act. This legislation will ensure that hydraulic fracturing does not unnecessarily jeopardize our groundwater. There are affordable alternatives that oil and gas companies can use so that they are not risking contaminating drinking water wells with potentially hazardous chemicals. I think Norma Fiorentino from Dimock, Pennsylvania, summed it up best when she told a reporter, ``You can't buy a good well.'' So I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation and ensure that our groundwater is protected as we responsibly develop our natural resources.