Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise today in support of a resolution honoring the lifetime achievement of the Reverend Leon H. Sullivan. My colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, has joined me as an original cosponsor of this resolution. Tomorrow marks the 6-year anniversary of the passing of one of America's great leaders. He was a man who changed the face of the world, a man of faith who achieved his mission in life through concrete action as well as his preaching. His family, friends, and colleagues appropriately refer to him as a ``giant among men''--a colossal force who helped overcome some of the greatest challenges of the 20th century. So I am honored to stand here today to acknowledge the extraordinary lifetime achievements of the late Reverend Leon H. Sullivan. Originally from West Virginia, Leon Sullivan grew up during the Great Depression while racial segregation still ruled the United States. He recalled it as a time when all of the White children walked down the left side of the street and all of the Black children walked on the right side of the street. It was a time when skin color often dictated one's place in society. When Reverend Sullivan was an 8-year-old, he was reprimanded for sitting at a drugstore counter and drinking a soda. A burly White man yelled at the young Leon: ``Stand on your own two feet, you can't sit here.'' When we think of Leon Sullivan today as a man, as a reverend, and as a leader, we think of his entire life, and his was a life of courage and compassion, a life of struggle and triumph, a life of faith and family--his own family and the human family--and, finally, his was a life for others and for God. When he was young and dealing with the kind of discrimination I just described, that kind of experience kindled a fire within his heart, and Leon Sullivan made the decision to commit his life to fighting segregation and injustice. Throughout his teenage years, he found inspiration in the founding documents of the United States. He understood that the principle of equality expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution transcends skin color. He repeatedly defied tradition and deliberately frequented restaurants, libraries, and shops where Blacks were not welcome, often reciting passages from the Declaration of Independence, fearlessly challenging racism and confronting prejudice where he found it. After graduating from high school, Leon Sullivan was awarded an athletic scholarship to West Virginia State College, where he played football and basketball and also enjoyed the Kappa Alpha Psi fraternity. After graduation, he was called to the ministry, a vocation that allowed him to address the religious needs of his people while continuing his fight against segregation and injustice. He moved first to Harlem, where he worked with the Reverend Adam Clayton Powell at the Abyssinian Baptist Church and attended Union Theological Seminary. He was offered a position in Philadelphia and soon emerged as a powerful source of inspiration as the pastor of the Zion Baptist Church, where he focused on the temporal as well as the spiritual well-being of his people. He once said: I felt that God did not just want people to have milk and honey in heaven . . . He wanted them to have some ham and eggs on earth. I believe that God just doesn't want you to go to the pearly gates. He wants you to have a better life on earth, and if you have a better life on earth and treat people right, you'll get to the pearly gates. As part of his ministerial role, Reverend Sullivan spoke eloquently about social justice, calling on people to ``help the little man and aid those who cannot survive on their own.'' For over a decade, he helped and counseled hundreds of parishioners and others, but his realization that racial segregation would prevent his vision from becoming a reality led him to join the civil rights moment. He was one of the first civil rights leaders to recognize how the economic power of his people could be harnessed to promote the cause of racial equality. He created the Selective Patronage Movement, through which 400 Black ministers in Philadelphia mobilized their parishioners to boycott businesses which practiced discrimination. Exercising economic power through the Selective Patronage Movement led to the opening of thousands of jobs in previously segregated companies in Philadelphia alone. These victories inspired Sullivan to create the Opportunities Industrial Utilization Center of America, the so-called OIC, which provided and still provides today comprehensive training so that motivated workers can be prepared to take advantage of opportunities opening up to them. As he said, ``Integration without preparation brings frustration.'' Originally based in Philadelphia, the OIC captured the attention of President Lyndon Johnson, who worked directly with Reverend Sullivan to improve the infrastructure and efficiency of the organization and ultimately bring it to the national stage. Today, OIC America has chapters in 30 States and has helped thousands of African Americans achieve success through its emphasis on self-reliance and self-improvement. The nationally recognized success of OIC led the chairman of General Motors to approach Reverend Sullivan about serving on the GM board of directors. The Reverend accepted the offer and served for over 20 years as the first African American on the GM board. His service to GM brought him face to face again with racism, this time in the international arena. Reverend Sullivan traveled to South Africa, where he was targeted as a troublesome visitor because of his meetings with anti- apartheid organizers. As he was leaving the country, he was stopped at the airport and strip-searched. Reverend Sullivan, the pastor of one of the largest churches in the United States, a director of General Motors, stood there in his underwear and asked the White officials in charge why this was happening. The official said, ``I am doing to you what I have to do.'' Reverend Sullivan replied: ``When I get back, I am going to do to you what I have to do.'' What Leon Sullivan did was bring the economic power of corporate America on the heads of those who supported apartheid in South Africa. Under what came to be known as the Sullivan Principles, hundreds of multinational corporations publicly opposed racism and discrimination in South Africa. When the statement of principle failed to change the status quo fast enough, Reverend Sullivan raised the stakes. In his words: ``I threatened South Africa and said in 2 years Mandela must be freed, apartheid must end and blacks must vote or else I will bring every American company I can out of South Africa . . . '' His efforts eventually evolved into a full campaign of disinvestment by hundreds of companies and by institutional investors holding hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate stock. And it worked. Apartheid collapsed, and Nelson Mandela went from prisoner to head of state. Reverend Sullivan's work continued long after the end of apartheid. In 1999, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan invited him to deliver a speech at the United Nations, expanding his moral code of corporate social responsibility into the internally accepted Global Sullivan Principles. Beyond this, he led a campaign to rescue African children from the overall lack of schools, infrastructure, hospitals and security. Reverend Sullivan said of children: Children do not get here on their own . . . They didn't ask to be here . . . They didn't ask who their mothers or fathers would be or the situations in which they were born. So what society has to do is reach and get the most out of that child you can . . . What I and so many others admired most about the Reverend Leon Sullivan was his compassion for those truly in need. He called those of us who are able to stand on our own feet and improve ourselves, while always protecting the helpless. Now I stand in this Chamber, on the floor of the Senate, to honor the energy and compassion of this great man dedicated to his noble causes. I have only touched on a few of the many contributions to our Nation and our world. These examples illustrate his unique ability to fight discrimination and injustice across the globe. From childhood until his death, Leon Sullivan believed in the future and demonstrated a relentless optimism regardless of the obstacles that tried to prohibit success. He characterized his life's work by saying: I would not be doing what I am doing if I weren't optimistic about it. I'm reaching into a barrel and taking out a little hand at a time, not a whole lot . . . but if enough hands go down in the next fifty, seventy-five, hundred years, we'll clean out that barrel. As we know, when so many of us pass on, most good people do, in fact, leave a legacy of family and close friends. Reverend Sullivan certainly did that. With us today is his family, represented by his daughter Hope and his friends and colleagues, many who worked with him for decades. But Leon Sullivan left a legacy far beyond family and friends. The Zion Baptist Church remains a bastion of faith and good works in north Philadelphia. OIC of America and OIC International continue to prepare thousands for productive, well-paying jobs. The International Foundation for Education and Self-Help trains students for careers ranging from teaching to banking. The Sullivan Charitable Trust and Progress Investment Associates carries on his economic and real estate development initiatives. The Leon Sullivan Foundation presents its biannual summit meeting in Africa, encouraging cooperation between African Americans and countries and leaders throughout the continent of Africa. The Global Sullivan Principles serve as a beacon for corporate social responsibility and human rights throughout the world. South Africa, the nation that Reverend Sullivan helped free from apartheid, still struggles, yet stands as a shining example of what people speaking truth and wielding moral force can do in our world. For all this and so much more that remains unsaid today, we honor the Rev. Leon Sullivan--today and always.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, this Sunday we will celebrate Earth Day, a day when we should reaffirm our commitment to a clean, safe, and healthy environment for our children and future generations. We have made a considerable amount of progress since Senator Gaylord Nelson established the first Earth Day thirty-seven years ago. We implemented the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, both landmark bills that have made our beautiful country a cleaner place to live. We no longer have rivers so massively polluted they actually catch fire and burn. We no longer have unchecked amounts of toxic pollutants being pumped into the air we breathe. We should be proud of these accomplishments because they show us that we can pass meaningful and effective laws to protect the environment and public health without sacrificing our economy and economic productivity. We still have serious threats to the safety and health of our environment. Obviously global climate change tops that list of threats. No other single issue has the potential to devastate our future and change the entire world so completely. We have an opportunity, if we get smart and take serious actions, to stop the cataclysmic changes that are just around the corner for this planet. The time to act is now. And I mean right now. Every year that we delay enacting a strong bill that forces us to make mandatory reductions to our carbon emissions the cost goes up. We simply cannot afford to wait. We cannot afford the cost of tackling an ever increasing carbon problem in future years. And we certainly cannot afford the long-term implications of climate change like rising sea levels that will displace large centers of population, droughts that will dramatically reduce fresh drinking water, and major storms like those that have hit the Gulf Coast and Atlantic seaboard over the past few years. Climate change is certainly the most pressing environmental issue facing us today. But we should not forget about other important issues facing our constituents. Reducing mercury and other air pollutants, reducing pollution of our rivers and streams, preserving open space and stopping urban sprawl, increasing investments in renewable and alternative energy sources, establishing higher fuel efficiency standards, and reducing the number of unremediated Superfund sites continue to be top priorities for me. For this reason and in honor of Earth Day, today I am introducing the Superfund Equity and Megasite Remediation Act of 2007. This legislation reinstates the polluter-pays tax that funds clean up of Superfund sites. In addition, my bill ramps up the tax for limited 5-year period in order to create a fund to clean up megasites, which cost more than $50 million each to remediate. I know that Senator Boxer, the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, has been a long-time advocate for reinstating the polluter-pays principle in federal hazardous waste cleanup law. I look forward to working with her and all of my colleagues on the Environment Committee and the Finance Committee to make sure that we have a Superfund program that cleans up the polluted sites that blight our communities and prevent development and reuse, and does so in a way that polluters foot the bill, and not taxpayers. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of this bill, and do the right thing for our local towns on Earth Day.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, this Sunday we will celebrate Earth Day, a day when we should reaffirm our commitment to a clean, safe, and healthy environment for our children and future generations. We have made a considerable amount of progress since Senator Gaylord Nelson established the first Earth Day thirty-seven years ago. We implemented the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, both landmark bills that have made our beautiful country a cleaner place to live. We no longer have rivers so massively polluted they actually catch fire and burn. We no longer have unchecked amounts of toxic pollutants being pumped into the air we breathe. We should be proud of these accomplishments because they show us that we can pass meaningful and effective laws to protect the environment and public health without sacrificing our economy and economic productivity. We still have serious threats to the safety and health of our environment. Obviously global climate change tops that list of threats. No other single issue has the potential to devastate our future and change the entire world so completely. We have an opportunity, if we get smart and take serious actions, to stop the cataclysmic changes that are just around the corner for this planet. The time to act is now. And I mean right now. Every year that we delay enacting a strong bill that forces us to make mandatory reductions to our carbon emissions the cost goes up. We simply cannot afford to wait. We cannot afford the cost of tackling an ever increasing carbon problem in future years. And we certainly cannot afford the long-term implications of climate change like rising sea levels that will displace large centers of population, droughts that will dramatically reduce fresh drinking water, and major storms like those that have hit the Gulf Coast and Atlantic seaboard over the past few years. Climate change is certainly the most pressing environmental issue facing us today. But we should not forget about other important issues facing our constituents. Reducing mercury and other air pollutants, reducing pollution of our rivers and streams, preserving open space and stopping urban sprawl, increasing investments in renewable and alternative energy sources, establishing higher fuel efficiency standards, and reducing the number of unremediated Superfund sites continue to be top priorities for me. For this reason and in honor of Earth Day, today I am introducing the Superfund Equity and Megasite Remediation Act of 2007. This legislation reinstates the polluter-pays tax that funds clean up of Superfund sites. In addition, my bill ramps up the tax for limited 5-year period in order to create a fund to clean up megasites, which cost more than $50 million each to remediate. I know that Senator Boxer, the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, has been a long-time advocate for reinstating the polluter-pays principle in federal hazardous waste cleanup law. I look forward to working with her and all of my colleagues on the Environment Committee and the Finance Committee to make sure that we have a Superfund program that cleans up the polluted sites that blight our communities and prevent development and reuse, and does so in a way that polluters foot the bill, and not taxpayers. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of this bill, and do the right thing for our local towns on Earth Day.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today, I would like to honor a woman of incomparable dedication and grace. After 26 years of loyal service to the Scranton School District, Mrs. Eleanor Santee retired from her position as a secretary at Robert Morris Elementary School on March 2, 2007. Throughout Eleanor's years of service, the combination of her experience and work ethic allowed her to provide capable administrative support for the three principals of Robert Morris Elementary under whom she served. More importantly, Eleanor took the time and initiative to provide support, encouragement, and friendship to the thousands of students who passed through the school during tenure. Some people with Eleanor's years of experience might have become complacent, but Eleanor understood that in order to be successful a school must go beyond mere academic success; it must also provide a nurturing environment where pupils can develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary for success throughout life. Eleanor made an indelible mark on Robert Morris Elementary and all who passed through there. She can take pride in a job well done. In retirement, I have no doubt that Eleanor will continue to be an active citizen of my hometown, Scranton, PA, where she resides with her husband Richard. I congratulate Eleanor on her many years of service to Robert Morris Elementary School and wish her the best in health and happiness at the completion of an admirable career.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, yesterday I filed amendment No. 740, which allows dairy farmers in Pennsylvania to receive a one-time emergency assistance payment of $2.50 for every hundredweight of milk they produced over the past 6 months. Because the Senate invoked cloture on this spending bill and we are quickly wrapping up our work to get funding to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, I will not have the opportunity to offer my amendment today. I will, however, continue to pursue this critical emergency funding for our dairy farmers. Dairy farmers in my home State and other Northeastern States are at the end of their rope. They have cut corners and pared their operations down to the absolute necessities, but they simply cannot make ends meet. Prices for feed and fuel have more than doubled over the past year and a half, but the price farmers get for their milk has not kept pace. Consequently, dairy farmers in Pennsylvania are losing about $5 on every hundredweight of milk they produce. For a small dairy farmer with 75 or so cows, this could mean a loss of around $20,000 year. During the last congressional recess, I toured two dairy farms in different regions of Pennsylvania and talked to dozens of farmers. I heard stories about draining savings accounts, trying to patch repair broken equipment, leaving bills unpaid, and selling cows just to keep the farm going. Our farmers are doing everything in their power to keep their businesses going. Unfortunately, many of them are now faced with their last option--to sell everything and shut down the farm. I want to be sure colleagues understand that this is happening right now, today. The prospect of mass closings of dairy farms is not something off in the distant future. Pennsylvania is losing 250 to 350 dairy farms every year. Today, dairy farmers in my home State are sitting down with their families and making tough decisions about the future of their farms. Many of them won't be able to stay in business while they wait for Congress to finish work on the new farm bill. The result would be devastating. Dairy is Pennsylvania's top agricultural commodity, contributing $4.2 billion annually to the State economy and employing 40,000 people. This is what we stand to lose if we stand by and watch as our dairy farmers close down. I am not willing to risk it. I also want to point out that the impacts of the loss of Pennsylvania's dairy industry will be felt throughout rural communities. As farmers go out of business, feed stores, fertilizer stores, and milk haulers go out of business, feed stores, fertilizer stores, and milk haulers go out of business. Without the economic engine provided by dairy, people are left out of work and our rural towns and counties will crumble. I will do everything in my power to prevent that from happening. I am committed to finding short-term relief to keep Pennsylvania dairy farmers in business while we make long-term fixes in Federal dairy policy in the next farm bill. I hope that all of my colleagues will support our hard-working dairy farmers and work with me to find commonsense solutions to avert an impending crisis in rural America.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise tonight to speak about an amendment that I believe will pave the way to expand quality preschool education for our Nation's children. I believe, as so many people in this Senate believe, that we must invest in our children in the dawn of their lives, as Hubert Humphrey said many years ago. The reason we must do that is, if we don't invest in them in the dawn of their lives, we can't expect them to be healthy, we can't expect them to learn and to grow and to have all the benefits that we hope any of our children would have as they move into school and begin to move into the future together. I thank Senator Conrad for the work he has done on this budget resolution and allowing us the ability to offer amendments like this. In particular, on this subject matter both Senator Kennedy and Senator Dodd not only have done great work over many years, but in particular this year, and their staffs have helped on this issue as well. I appreciate that. My amendment is simple. It creates a deficit-neutral reserve fund for expanding preschool education to children of low-income families. It is my hope the Congress can come together in a bipartisan way on legislation to expand access to preschool education for children, especially children of low-income families--but it would not be so limited. We could also cover children of lower and middle-income families as well. Mr. President, you know well--you have spoken about this--we already have two great programs that help our children among several but two that I will mention tonight. We have Head Start and the Child Care Development Block Grant Program. These are programs that we know work. They deliver results for those children and for our country. So I believe both Head Start and the Child Care Development Block Grant Program are good investments for those children, for their families, and for our future. I believe Head Start and the Child Care Development Block Grant Program should receive the funding they need from Congress this year in this budget. At the same time, I also believe a preschool program for early learning that I speak of tonight will complement and add to and enhance the ability of these other programs to help our children. I also believe that by setting up a deficit-neutral reserve fund, this amendment will eventually require offsets. But I also think when we do that we are speaking not just of a program that should work but a program that will be fiscally responsible and maintain fiscal discipline. I want to make sure that in this amendment, in this budget process we are engaged in right now, that we leave flexibility for the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and the Senate itself to create a preschool assistance program for the States. I believe this amendment does that. I hope this flexibility will allow us to work across the aisle in a bipartisan fashion on the parameters of this program and its eventual costs. Early childhood education has been a priority of mine for many years and had been a priority of mine in State government as the auditor general and State treasurer of Pennsylvania. In the Senate it will continue to be a top priority for me. I have been a strong advocate for improving the quality and safety of childcare in my home State of Pennsylvania, and I will continue to do that in the Senate. We know this: study after study shows that investments in pre-K are not just good for that child and not just good for that child's family but, of course, for the State in which they live and for our whole country. We hear a lot of talk in this Chamber about growing the economy, making sure people have the ability to be entrepreneurs, to invest and to grow and to make money and to build our economy. That is great and we all support that. But if we really are serious about growing the economy of America today and into the future, I believe we must invest in our children. We know these programs pay dividends for our children and for our future. I believe the Bush administration should not only put together the right kind of budget--and I have been critical of many aspects of the President's proposal--but I think the administration should increase funds for Head Start, not cut them. It should increase funds for the Child Care Development Block Grant Program, and at the same time we must help our States in their efforts to establish quality prekindergarten education programs so that all children, no matter what their background, can enter school ready to learn. Investments in our children and early childhood education should be a top national priority, something that should have bipartisan support. I believe it will and it does. By working to make sure that every child is ready to learn when they enter school and by nurturing our children during their early years, we make an investment that pays dividends to the child and for the country. I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for 10 minutes each.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9 a.m; Friday, March 23; that on Friday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day; that the Senate then resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 21, with 30 minutes remaining for debate equally divided or controlled between the chairman and ranking member of the Budget Committee; that when the voting sequence begins there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to each vote in the sequence.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 47, that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, if there is no further business today, and if the Republican leader has nothing further, I now ask unanimous consent that following the last speaker on the Republican side, the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following calendar items be indefinitely postponed: Calendar No. 54, S. 194; Calendar No. 55, S. 219; and Calendar No. 56, S. 412.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 119, submitted earlier today.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask morning business be closed.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. Mr. President, I would like to speak today about the budget we are going to be debating and about our economic prospects as we go forward. I also want to thank those who have been working so diligently to put this budget package together. Senator Schumer has worked, especially as the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, to focus our attention on some of the economic realities we face in the weeks ahead. The fact is, when we look at the economic data, Wall Street has done pretty well over the last 6 years, but the average American, however, has not shared in that prosperity. Since 2001, median household income is down after inflation. More than 5 million more people--a total of 37 million Americans--live in poverty today, including 1.3 million more children. So now we have some 12.9 million children in poverty. Long-term unemployment is up 80 percent. Three million manufacturing jobs have been lost in that time period, many from my home State of Pennsylvania, like in manufacturing States across the country. We also have to look beyond the data from where we are now and have been in the past. We have to look to the future. We all know we face a tremendous challenge when the retirement of the baby boom generation begins in earnest. The coming retirement of those Americans means the Social Security and Medicare obligations we owe them, because of their decades of work, are coming due. At the same time, this administration has been issuing debt, in my judgment, at an irresponsible and reckless pace--most of it being purchased by governments across the world and by individual countries we are competing against. We hear a lot in the context of our energy policy about reducing our dependence on foreign oil. There is tremendous agreement about that goal. I think in the economic context we can use the same language. It is about time the U.S. Government, especially this administration, began to get on the road of reducing our dependence on foreign debt. We need to have policies that will do that. For the last 10 years, prior to coming to Washington as a Senator, I was a public official in Pennsylvania--8 as auditor general and 2 as treasurer. One of the jobs I had, especially as auditor general, was to be one of the so-called issuing officials. We issued debt in State government. As part of that, one of my responsibilities, one of my basic requirements, by statute, was to certify that Pennsylvania was not only staying within its constitutional debt limit but was assuring it was not straining its borrowing capacity from an economic or fiscal standpoint because doing so would undermine Pennsylvania's debt rating and drive up the cost of future borrowing. I do not think there is anyone in this administration, or in this Congress for that matter, who could certify or would certify the Federal Government is not straining its borrowing capacity today, and certainly for the last several years. The fact is, our debt is not just a piece of paper filed away in some cabinet. It is real. It represents a lot of things. It represents, first of all, a dependence upon other governments in terms of our foreign debt. It often represents a taking away from investments in very important programs for people. I say to the Presiding Officer, you understood that in your work in the Congress and now in the Senate. You understand those critical investments. If you drive up the cost of borrowing, you make it more difficult for us to not only borrow money but to invest. All of our families will be the losers in that scenario. So I think in addition to gaining control of our fiscal house and putting our fiscal house in order and beginning to reduce our dependence on foreign debt, we must also, at the same time--and I think it is obviously related--increase our investment in American families. We need to start to do that by keeping our promises to those of our families who rely upon good investments by the Federal Government. We all know in a global economy--and certainly the newer global economy--it is very clear that goods can be moved all over the world. We are happy about that. It is amazing what technology and transportation have done to bring that about. Money can move in a matter of minutes now. We know that. But people, by and large, tend to be much more stationary in the sense that they do not move nearly as fast as money or goods. America, in particular, has been able, over a long period of time, to develop our own talent--the talents of our people--and to attract talent from all over the world. But the only way we are going to maintain that, to maintain our competitive edge, to be able to invest in strategies that will work, is to actually focus our attention on the skills and the education and the advancement of the American people. In order to do that, we have to give the American people the tools they need to compete in a global economy. We all know if we do that and we meet our obligations and keep our promises, we will ensure the global marketplace and trade are conducted on a fair basis and that we don't put our workers at an unfair disadvantage. But in order to do that, we have to invest. That is why, as the Presiding Officer knows from listening to our colleagues in the Democratic caucus, and certainly by analyzing the budget that was put together by the Budget Committee, especially under the leadership of Chairman Kent Conrad from North Dakota, what that budget has done, what the proposal does is puts together a budget that makes sense, that makes fiscal sense, that begins to reduce our deficit and brings us into balance by 2012. In fact, it brings us beyond balance. It gives us a $132 billion surplus. Also, it realizes that right now we are in a hole because of how we have been conducting fiscal business in this town for the last several years. It realizes that when you are in a hole, as the old expression goes, you should stop digging. It realizes people are our most valuable resource. This budget invests in them in so many ways. One good example of that, or two actually, is the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the so-called SCHIP program, and the Presiding Officer knows in the State of New Jersey the benefit that program has had in his State and in the State of Pennsylvania and in so many others. We have to make sure we get that right, not only to maintain the coverage for the millions of children already enrolled and their families and their communities and the economy as a whole benefit when they are enrolled, so we have to keep them covered, but we also have to meet the larger challenge of insuring the 9 million other children who have no health insurance at all and won't even begin to be covered under the President's budget. That is an important investment this budget proposal makes. It also increases education funding at the same time by funding No Child Left Behind, making sure our families get help with higher education and all the rest. This budget makes sure we are making the right decisions on Medicare and Medicaid. The Presiding Officer knows Medicaid increasingly and overwhelmingly is about making sure that older citizens have the opportunity to get quality care in nursing homes, and it is also ensuring we are covering poor children and poor families. This budget does all of this while also being fiscally responsible by reducing the size of the deficit and by beginning to lower our debt to foreign governments, and making sure we are doing this in the context of both reducing debt and deficit, but also making important investments. This budget focuses on the right priorities in an economic sense, but it also bears in mind that we have obligations. We have promises to keep. This budget goes a long way toward making sure we are being fiscally responsible and keeping our promises. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, some years ago, the distinguished and late great Senator from the State of Minnesota, Hubert H. Humphrey, said the following when he was talking about how we should evaluate budgets in government. He said: The moral test of a government is how it treats those in the dawn of life, those in the shadows of life, and those in the twilight of life. I rise today to speak of those in the dawn of their lives--children across America and especially the children of working families, working families who have no health insurance. Unfortunately, despite good intentions and despite a good program I will be speaking about this morning, there are 9 million American children with no health insurance at all--9 million children. That is a blot on the American conscience--or should be--that there are 9 million children who have no health insurance at all. Justice cannot abide 9 million children in America with no health insurance. That is the bad news. The good news is that we have a way to bring some relief to those children, to their families, and to the American economy. It is called the State Children's Health Insurance Program, known by the acronym SCHIP. So when I refer to SCHIP by that acronym, I am speaking of that program, the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Here is what this program does, and it bears repeating because of the broad coverage that important program provides to children across America. It provides comprehensive health insurance coverage to up to 6 million American children. It is financed jointly by State governments and the Federal Government. Currently, that program costs the Federal Government just over $5 billion per year--a very small price to pay in a huge Federal budget with all the return you get from that investment for our children. Remember what this program is: It is a program that covers the children of working families, those families whose incomes are too high to be covered by Medicaid and whose incomes are too low to have the coverage that is provided in the private market. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about families who are squeezed in between and who cannot afford coverage in the private market but also don't qualify for Medicaid. In Pennsylvania, my home State, I am honored and proud to say that my father, Governor Casey, when he was the Governor of Pennsylvania, signed into law one of the first children's health insurance programs in the Nation in 1992. Since that time, not only in Pennsylvania but especially in our State, we have had broad bipartisan support for this program from Republican Governors and Democratic Governors. Currently, Governor Rendell is trying to expand the Children's Health Insurance Program in Pennsylvania. That is a good thing because even though it covers as many as 150,000 Pennsylvania children, there are still over 130,000 children in the State of Pennsylvania who have no coverage. The Governor wants to attack that problem and reduce that number. Unfortunately, this Governor of Pennsylvania, Governor Rendell, as well as Governors across the country, in both parties, are unable to expand their programs if the budget proposal set forth by the President becomes the law. Here is what the Bush budget does when it comes to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and I am quoting from a report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: ``The Bush budget provides less than half''--less than half--``of the funding needed for States to maintain existing caseloads.'' What we are talking about there is, going forward in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012, in those budget years, the President's budget provides less than half the money to maintain the coverage for those approximately 6 million children who have coverage. This doesn't even address the problem I started with this morning, the 9 million children who don't have any health care coverage at all. We have to do two things. We have to make sure we maintain the coverage for the 6 million children who have it in America across the country in almost every State in the country. They are not divided by Democrat and Republican; they are children and their families, and they are part of the family of America. We have to make sure we maintain their coverage. At the same time, we have to expand coverage to begin to cover the 9 million who have no health insurance coverage at all. What is the effect of this budget on these families? The Bush budget has a funding shortfall over 5 years of $7 billion. That is a big number, but let us talk about that in terms of children. That is the most important thing here. That $7 billion shortfall equates, by 2012, to 1.4 million children losing their coverage. We are still on problem No. 1, those who have coverage who will lose it--1.4 million of them-- if this budget goes through. That is what we are talking about when we talk about this budget and this important program. But we have to make sure we do more than just maintain coverage; we have to make sure we expand it for the millions of children who don't have health insurance. I wish to conclude this morning with a couple of basic questions for the President, for the Senate, and for the House. This is what every elected official in Washington has to answer when they vote on this budget and when they vote on the question of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Question No. 1 for the President and for the Congress: Does the administration and the Congress want 1.4 million children to lose their health insurance coverage? You can't have it both ways. If you vote for the President's proposal, you are voting to cut 1.4 million kids from the insurance rolls. That is question No. 1, and it is a ``yes'' or ``no'' answer. There is no dodging that question. Question No. 2: Are tax breaks for millionaires and multimillionaires and billionaires more important than the State Children's Health Insurance Program? Do they have a higher priority? Do their needs come ahead of the children of working parents? That is another question we have to answer because there will be people in this town who will talk about the cost of expanding health insurance coverage or even maintaining the coverage that is there. They will say: Oh, that is going to cost lots of money. Well, I have to ask them a basic question: Are the millionaires and billionaires who have benefited year after year to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars--is their tax cut more important than children? It is a ``yes'' or ``no'' answer, and that is what the Congress and the President have to answer. Finally, No. 3, the basic question for today, tomorrow, but especially for many years from now: Do you want the gross domestic product to grow? Do you want the American economy to grow? Because if you answer that question ``yes,'' you cannot oppose the expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. You cannot. We know the benefits of providing health insurance to children. We know they will go to school ready to learn. We know they will be healthier in school, they will get higher test scores, and they will have the benefit of higher education, hopefully, for many of them, and they will go on to achieve their full potential in the job market and help grow the American economy. So if you care about the economy today, tomorrow, and into the future, and you care about growing jobs, you must vote, in my judgment, to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Finally, it is about coverage. It is about maintaining that coverage, and it is about making sure 9 million kids have health insurance in the future. It is also making sure we do everything possible to reach every child and make sure that child's family is utilizing the great services of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. If we meet this obligation to cover the kids who are covered now, to make sure their coverage is maintained, and to cover the 9 million children, we will have gone a long way toward meeting Hubert H. Humphrey's moral test of government: to make sure we are taking care and helping children in the dawn of their lives. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment. I am proud to serve as a cosponsor. As my colleagues know, we have spent the past week debating legislation to once and for all fully implement the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission delivered in July 2004. This bill before us, along with its counterpart already passed in the House, would largely do just that by making it more difficult for terrorists to gain access into our country by enhancing information sharing in our intelligence community and homeland security apparatus so that we can truly connect the dots in future plots against our Nation, and by providing genuine incentives to the private sector to do their part in order to strengthen their preparedness to prevent and respond to acts of terrorism. The bill would also provide much needed funding to enhance the security of our rail and transit systems, including Amtrak's northeast corridor, a rail system that carries tens of thousands of passengers every day along the east coast, including my home State of Pennsylvania, and which remains unacceptably vulnerable to terrorist attack. However, we must be honest. The bill does not fully implement every recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. Chapter 12 in the Commission's final report addresses the difficult challenge of allocating limited funds across the Nation to address an array of homeland security vulnerabilities and gaps. The report recognizes that we as a nation cannot protect every vulnerable port, every vulnerable icon, and every vulnerable spot where Americans congregate every day. A universal approach would turn our Nation into an armed fortress, too restrictive of the liberties we cherish and love as Americans. That would be a victory for the terrorists. Let me quote directly from the bipartisan Commission report which lays out in plain and clear language why it is so important that we allocate homeland security dollars on the basis of risk: Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities. Now, in 2004, Washington, D.C., and New York are certainly at the top of any such list. We understand the contention that every state and city needs to have some minimum infrastructure for emergency response. But federal homeland security assistance should not remain a program for general revenue sharing. It should supplement state and local resources based on the risks and vulnerabilities that merit additional support. Congress should not use this money as a pork barrel. So says the 9/11 Commission Report. The Commission calls for a strict prioritization of national needs based upon a strict risk-based assessment. Those potential targets that are most attractive to terrorist groups, that contain the most deep-seated vulnerabilities to an attack, and that, if successfully attacked, would produce the most drastic consequences in terms of lives lost, people injured, and economic damage should be given priority in terms of allocating our limited homeland security dollars. This definition of risk, which successfully incorporates the three variables of threat, vulnerability, and consequence, has been recommended by countless academic experts and is now incorporated into the Department of Homeland Security's framework for assessing how to rank various targets in our Nation in terms of their likelihood for a future attack. Unfortunately, the Congress has not kept pace with the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, and the bill before us this week still does not get it right, even though it purports to fully implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. This bill, while superb in almost every other respect, would still retain the misguided approach first established by the PATRIOT Act that would mandate that each State receive a minimum of .75 percent of overall funding for most of the homeland security grant programs, including the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Law Enforcement Terrorist Prevention Program, and the Citizen Corps Program. In other words, 38 percent of the funding dollars for our major homeland security grant initiatives is allocated on an arbitrary basis, wholly unrelated to risk. Thirty-eight percent of these funding dollars is distributed in such a fashion that every State receives the exact same share, with equal dollars flowing to large States such as Pennsylvania and New York, as well as much smaller States. This makes no sense. Every State is not equally at risk from the threat of terrorism and is thus eligible for equal dollar amounts. I recognize that the remaining 62 percent of funds under these homeland security grants are now based on risk, but it is wrong and harmful to deny almost half of all funds to those areas that are at greatest risk. That is why I am so pleased to cosponsor the Feinstein amendment which would reduce those per-State minimums from .75 percent of overall grant funding to .25 percent. In other words, instead of 62 percent of funding allocated on the basis of risk, 87 percent of all grant funds would be allocated on a risk basis. Is that a perfect solution? No, it is not. In a perfect world, 100 percent of funds in every homeland security program would be allocated on the basis of risk, and State-by-State minimums would become a historic relic. But I understand political realities, and I recognize this amendment by itself will face a real challenge in achieving passage. The Feinstein-Cornyn amendment, by replicating a provision in the 9/11 bill that passed the House in January, nevertheless would significantly improve the quality of our homeland security funding by requiring a greater share of it be allocated on the basis of risk. This issue is often unfairly characterized as a large State versus small State battle. Those States with large populations would supposedly automatically benefit under any funding formula that is based to a greater degree on risk while small States would lose or so the argument goes. That would be true only if we use population levels as a proxy for risk, which this amendment does not do. Instead, the Feinstein amendment defines risk as a function of threat, vulnerability, and consequence. So a small State with several targets that are uniquely at risk due to a combination of these three variables would profit from this amendment just as a State as large as New York or New Jersey or Pennsylvania. This amendment, to the greatest extent possible, takes individual States out of the formula. It focuses on where and what our Nation's targets of terrorism are and where the greatest risks lie and focuses our homeland security dollars on those targets. Those who hail from small States should not reflexively oppose this amendment. The fact remains, their States can benefit--small States can benefit--from greater funding under this new formula. Will there be losers under this new formula? Sure. Of course. Those States with a minimum level of potential targets at great risk would receive potentially less funding. But I am confident the people of those States will recognize the enormity of the stakes involved: how to best protect our Nation in a long struggle against terrorism. I have faith the American people will put aside parochial concerns in favor of those strategies that protect all of us. I hail from a State that sits at the higher end of the range of vulnerability to attacks of terrorism. Under the Urban Areas Security Initiative, or UASI, two urban regions in Pennsylvania have been consistently designated as high risk in this program since its inception in fiscal year 2003: Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Philadelphia is home to such historic sites as Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell. It is also a major hub for Amtrak's Northeast corridor, a vital transportation artery that links Washington to Boston and points further beyond. We have seen what the terrorists have done in Madrid and London and other places. If they seek to export their tactics to our Nation, the Northeast corridor, including Philadelphia's 30th Street Station, would be a prime target. Also, the city of Pittsburgh includes world-class universities, major sports stadiums, and other icons of national significance. There is a reason why both cities have been included in the 15 most at-risk urban regions in the United States and are eligible for grants under the UASI program. The UASI program is the only homeland security program that operates fully--fully--on the basis of risk. For that reason, it is the most effective program, as it allocates dollars without regard to State by State minimums or political guidelines. Future terrorist acts endanger the people of Pennsylvania, and I will continue to stand up for them to assure our homeland security programs are appropriately focused on the threats where they are. I understand no State or its representative Members want to lose out on additional Federal dollars. But I would once again quote from the 9/11 Commission report which has served as the inspiration behind our entire debate on this important bill. In concluding that risk-based funding is the only way for our Nation to apportion homeland security dollars, the Commission declared that: In a free-for-all over money, it is understandable that representatives will work to protect the interests of their home states or districts. But this issue is too important for politics as usual to prevail. ``Too important for politics as usual to prevail.'' After the horrors of 9/11, we cannot ignore the significance of that call to duty. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in support of the Feinstein- Cornyn amendment so we can ensure our precious homeland security resources are allocated in a fair and efficient manner. 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. President, I rise today to voice my strong support for the motion to invoke cloture to proceed to S. 574 so the Senate can undertake a full, vigorous, and honest debate on the future course of American policy for the war in Iraq. As we speak about and debate the war, let us never forget our troops in battle, those troops in battle on the streets in Baghdad, in Anbar Province, or other areas of Iraq. We also remember, as we debate this issue, their families and their sacrifice. Finally, today, and in all the days we debate this critically important issue to our country, we honor the sacrifice of those soldiers and marines who gave, as President Lincoln said at Gettysburg, ``the last full measure of devotion to their country.'' We pray for them today and always, and we pray for ourselves that we may be worthy of their valor. At this time in the Senate we are confronted with two simple questions: First, does the Senate agree with President Bush's plan to escalate our military involvement in Iraq by deploying some 21,000 more troops? Second, will the Senate vote tomorrow to allow debate to go forward? Just those two questions confront us today and tomorrow. There will be further debate about our policy in Iraq in the weeks and months ahead, but for the next few days it is those two questions. As I have stated before, I oppose this escalation, but I also support debating it. The grave question of war must always be--always be--the subject of vigorous debate, especially in the Senate. As a Senator from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, a State that has lost 150 young men and women in combat, I have a solemn obligation to speak out about the escalation. Many of these brave Americans from Pennsylvania come from small towns such as Rockport and Connellsville and Beaver Falls, and from cities such as Bethlehem and Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. I have an obligation to speak out against those policies that only increase the likelihood that even more of Pennsylvania's sons and daughters will die or be grievously wounded on behalf of a flawed strategy. I had hoped, like many in this Chamber, we could have moved forward with the debate on Iraq 2 weeks ago. The American people don't understand why the Senate isn't debating this war when all of America expects us to do so. Perhaps a rare Saturday vote will help this body realize the importance as this debate moves forward. We owe it to the troops, their families, and to those who have loved and lost someone dear to them in this war to debate our Iraq policy and to clearly express our opposition to the President's escalation. The American people have clearly voiced their strong support and their desire for their elected representatives to address this issue. The elections last November turned in large part on the failure of the previous Congress to engage in adequate oversight of the administration and ask the tough questions when it came to the execution of the war. Debating is essential to good oversight. We know that recent polls conducted across America reveal Americans consider the war as one of the two most important problems facing our Nation. An overwhelming 63 percent of respondents in a recent national poll expressed concern that the Senate had been unsuccessful to date in attempts to hold a debate on the war in Iraq. We have an obligation to act, and that begins with a full debate. S. 574 is short but eloquent. It respects and honors our troops who are serving or who have served with distinction in Iraq, and it communicates our disapproval of the President's escalation of the war. It mandates--mandates--additional reporting requirements so there is transparency with regard to military, political, and diplomatic operations in Iraq. This resolution deserves our support because it sends the right message to the President to change course in Iraq. In the first 5 weeks of this new Congress, as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I have listened carefully to more than 25 witnesses over the course of a dozen hearings, some 50 hours of testimony from generals and other military experts, diplomats and foreign policy experts, the cochairmen of the Iraq Study Group, and so many others. I have asked tough questions, and I have listened to statements and questions from my colleagues, some of whom have had decades of experience in foreign affairs and the oversight of military operations. After all these hearings, I am even more certain that this escalation is the wrong strategy. The National Intelligence Estimate--we know it by the acronym NIE-- released in January on Iraq's prospects for near-term stability paints a dire picture. The unclassified version describes a growing sectarian- based polarization, ineffective security forces with questionable loyalties, and an all-but-certain rise in communal violence in the coming months. The National Intelligence Estimate clarifies that Iraq's violence today is primarily driven by ``the self-sustaining character of Iraq's internal sectarian dynamics.'' Reading the key judgments of the NIE, I can only conclude that political reconciliation between the respective leaders of Iraq's varied populations is the best way and probably the only way to reduce the violence and to begin to create a stable state that is not a threat to its neighbors. Escalating military conflict by inserting additional U.S. troops in Iraq is not the answer. As Chairman Biden remarked during the Foreign Relations Committee's deliberations on a related resolution, this effort is not inspired by a desire to embarrass or isolate President Bush. Rather, it is an attempt to demonstrate to the President that his approach is flawed and will not result in the outcome he seeks. The President is still searching for a military solution when, in fact, it is time for a political solution led by the Iraqis themselves. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al- Maliki himself declared last November, ``The crisis is political, and the ones who can stop the cycle of aggravation and bloodletting of innocents are the politicians.'' What we need is not just a political strategy; we need sustained and vigorous diplomatic engagement that I would argue has been lacking. The President and his senior officials have failed to make the case that the so-called new way forward in Iraq is, in fact, new or promises significant changes needed to achieve real victory. Instead, the President's escalation strategy risks repeating mistakes already made. It inserts more American troops into the crossfire of growing sectarian conflict, and it ignores the urgent need to reorient the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq toward those objectives which offer our best chance to leave behind a secure and stable Iraq. In spite of all the rhetoric from the White House in recent weeks, I believe, and many in this Senate believe, that the President's policy is more or less more of the same: Stay the course. The United States today has approximately 137,000 troops in Iraq, growing by the day and by the week. Sending an additional 21,000 troops will not fundamentally change the current dynamic in Iraq. The reality is that more American troops is not the answer in Iraq. General Abizaid, the outgoing U.S. Central Command commander, testified in November that the unanimous opinion of his top subordinates was that more American troops would only perpetuate the dependence of Iraqi troops and would not offer a positive solution. No matter how many troops we send, they cannot provide lasting security on the streets of Baghdad or other Iraqi cities. Only fully equipped, trained, and dedicated Iraqi military and police forces--those who do not pick and choose sides among sectarian groups--only they can provide the type of permanent security that will enable the Iraqi political and civilian life to emerge and the nation to embark on a path to reconciliation. We heard from former Congressman Lee Hamilton during our Foreign Relations Committee hearings. He noted in his testimony before that committee that the money, time, and attention we are devoting to escalating the level of U.S. forces in Iraq must not detract from what should be a primary mission for the United States: training Iraqi security forces to enhance their capability to take the lead and allow U.S. forces to redeploy out of that country. Congressman Hamilton and so many others have placed the primacy on the question of training. Instead, by adopting the President's strategy, I fear we are sending an additional 21,000 troops without a more focused mission and lacking a solid plan to accomplish it. I fear we are still investing too much trust in the Maliki government, a regime that has failed to demonstrate it is acting on behalf of all Iraqis and may be focused only on one sectarian group. I fear American forces will continue to serve as a bull's-eye target for those resentful of a prolonged U.S. occupation in Iraq. In short, I fear, and many in this Senate fear, we are sending more American men and women into Iraq without a new blueprint for victory and without the essential political, diplomatic, and international groundwork required to succeed. The President has based his troop escalation on the hope--the risky hope, I would argue--that this time the Maliki regime will carry through on its commitments and deliver the required Iraqi forces to help U.S. forces secure neighborhoods throughout Baghdad and, more important, then remain to allow reconstruction to proceed and normal life to return. Yet the record is not encouraging. In Operation Together Forward, Prime Minister Maliki had pledged six battalions, but only two were sent. Some of those Iraqi units suffered subsequent serious attrition rates. Many of those forces have been infiltrated by the very sectarian militias they are now being asked to disarm. We are already seeing troubling signs in the initial stages of this latest escalation. The New York Times, January 22, the Washington Post, USA Today, and so many other news articles which I will not repeat here today have talked about the problems with Iraqi security forces showing up late or not showing up at all, not serious about their mission, not trained, not focused, and frankly not helping enough in terms of helping American forces. Americans are dying because of that incompetence. The fact remains that it is very difficult to rely on Iraqi forces when you have to ask them to deploy outside of their normal areas of operation and their ethnic strongholds. I also retain real doubts when the President insists that this time, this time it will be different, that Mr. Maliki now means it when he says Iraqi forces will truly crack down on all troublemakers, whether they are Shia or Sunni. The Government of Iraq has promised repeatedly to assume a greater share of security responsibilities, disband militias, consider constitutional amendments, and enact laws to reconcile sectarian differences and improve the quality of essential services for the Iraqi people. Yet, despite those promises, little has been achieved by the Iraqis. Moreover, I am skeptical of this escalation of U.S. troops because we have seen it before. We have seen it before, tried over and over again. Operation Together Forward in 2006 represented a similar escalation; 12,000 additional U.S. troops were introduced into the city of Baghdad, only to see U.S. and Iraqi casualties spike considerably without a sustained reduction in sectarian violence. We have seen similar efforts to ``flood the zone'' with additional U.S. troops in places such as Fallujah and Ramadi, only resulting in temporary gains. If more troops have not worked in the recent past, why should we have any reason to believe it will work this time? I am concerned, as are so many others, about the dual-chain-of- command concept that is being introduced as part of this escalation. Recently, Prime Minister al-Maliki's commander in the region and the capital itself has been trying to carry out part of this strategy. At the same time, there will be a separate or parallel U.S. command headed by MG Joseph Fil, Jr. Both commanders will have ultimate control over their own national troops, but this ``partnered'' command could create serious complications if there are disputes between U.S. and Iraqi military forces over specific operations. A unified chain of command is one of the hallmark principles that have long governed deployment of U.S. forces abroad. Finally, I oppose this escalation strategy because I fear it will only exacerbate the longstanding strains on our Nation's military overall. Seven years ago, President Bush declared that his predecessor was leaving office with a military in decline. He alleged that the previous administration had not adequately funded our Armed Forces while simultaneously deploying those forces in excessive engagements around the world. It is one of the most tragic ironies that this President is himself now stretching our military to a genuine breaking point, as he pursues a misguided strategy in Iraq. The Washington Post recently published an important article documenting the impacts of this proposed troop escalation. According to the Post, the Army and Marine Corps already lack thousands of necessary vehicles, armor kits, and other equipment needed to supply the extra forces. Diverting 21,000 troops from other essential missions around the world will only further deteriorate the readiness of our overall ground forces, making it more difficult to respond quickly and decisively in the event of other military contingencies, and raise the likelihood of greater U.S. casualties. Our Nation's military is facing a genuine crisis. The war in Iraq has exacted a heavy toll--in casualties, first and foremost, but also in terms of combat equipment that undergirds our fighting men and women. Our National Guard and Reserve troops in particular are paying a heavy price. Army data shows that the Army National Guard units today only have, on average, 40 percent of their required equipment--40 percent. National Guard combat brigades are being involuntarily mobilized, and reservists are being sent back to the command theater on a repeated basis. Representative John Murtha, a decorated marine from my home State of Pennsylvania, painted a distressing picture of our military's readiness--or I should say lack thereof--during recent testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As he noted: At the beginning of the Iraq war, 80 percent of all Army units and almost 100 percent of active combat units were rated at the highest state of readiness. Today, virtually all of our active duty combat units at home and all of our guard units are at the lowest state of readiness, primarily due to equipment shortages resulting from repeated and extended deployments in Iraq. Chairman Murtha then went on to cite recent House testimony from a senior Pentagon official that our country was threatened because we lacked readiness at home. I welcome, as so many do, the President's intention to expand our military--permanently elevating the Army and Marine Corps' Active-Duty ranks over the next 5 years. But that is only a long-term solution. Our current forces are badly overextended, and an escalation in strategy in Iraq will only worsen that condition. Our Nation faces growing challenges around the world. We must ensure that our military forces receive adequate training, are fully equipped, and retain the necessary flexibility to quickly respond to contingencies wherever they may arise. Pouring more troops into Iraq does not make those requirements any easier to meet. Just listen to the bipartisan Iraq Study Group on this matter: America's military capacity is stretched thin; we do not have the troops or equipment to make a substantial sustained increase in our troops presence. The Iraq Study Group goes on to say: Increased deployments to Iraq would also necessarily hamper our ability to provide adequate resources for our efforts in Afghanistan or respond to crises around the world. So says the Iraq Study Group. For all these reasons, I am proud to stand here today in support of a bipartisan effort to send the President a message that the troop escalation in Iraq is the wrong choice for our Nation. Instead, our Iraq strategy should emphasize a new direction, encouraging Iraqi leaders to make political compromises that will foster reconciliation and strengthen the unity of the Government, laying the groundwork for an improved security situation, and redeploying our military forces in Iraq so they can focus on maintaining that nation's territorial integrity. We also must deny al-Qaida and other terrorists a safe haven, conduct counterterrorism operations, promote regional stability, and, most important, train and equip Iraqi forces to take the lead in security and combat operations. The President's escalation strategy of throwing more U.S. troops into Iraq's burgeoning civil war undercuts and detracts from each of these objectives: A campaign of escalation is incompatible with securing a new and better direction in Iraq. For those who argue that supporting this resolution only offers criticism but does not offer specific alternatives, I urge you to listen to what I and others have said in these days and what we will say in the next couple of days especially. We have heard from the opponents about what this all means. I will not go into their opinions today. But I will say this: Every Member of this Chamber in both parties honors our troops, no matter which way we stand on escalation. We honor their sacrifices--the sacrifices they and their families make on a daily basis. But we must examine--we have an obligation to examine our national policies which we are asked to carry out and to be supportive of or in opposition to. If we disagree with the broad strategic direction in which the President is taking our Nation, it is our duty to speak out. To remain silent or passive in the face of an approach we believe is misguided and not in the national interests is an abdication of the responsibilities of our offices. Our military forces and their loved ones have paid a heavy price for this mission in Iraq. As I have noted before, at least 150 Pennsylvanians have given their lives, with hundreds more suffering from serious and lifelong injuries. PFC Ross A. McGinnis of Knox, PA, was one of those killed in action. He was 19 years old. He died of injuries on December 4, 2006, after a grenade was thrown into his vehicle in Baghdad. Private McGinnis has been nominated by his commanders for the Medal of Honor. He was manning the gunner's hatch when a grenade was thrown into his humvee. He could have jumped out to save himself, but he threw himself on the grenade to save the lives of his crew members. We must always remember this debate we must have must not have a focus on abstract policy matters. This has real implications for our men and women in the Armed Forces. We cannot forget the lessons and the life of Private McGinnis or any of the more than 3,000 Americans who have died during this conflict. Our troops are deserving of our support and the support of all the American people. Mr. President, I conclude with this: A troop increase will only endanger more young Americans in Iraq without any clear hope of success. For that reason, I support honest and open debate on the merits of the President's plan and an opportunity for the Senate to declare its views. I will vote to allow this important debate to proceed, and I will vote in favor of S. 574. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I was pleased that today a fellow Pennsylvanian, Nora Barry Fischer, was confirmed by the U.S. Senate to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. I was also happy to help expedite her nomination before the Judiciary Committee to help ensure a speedy consideration by the full Senate. Ms. Fischer is a native of Homestead, PA, and a graduate of Notre Dame Law School. In private practice, she has gained extensive experience in litigation and mediation. Ms. Fischer will bring a wealth of knowledge to the bench, and I am confident that she will serve western Pennsylvania and the Nation well.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 2 which, as we know, will increase the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour. I thank my colleague, Senator Kennedy, and the bipartisan work that went into developing this issue. I speak today of an issue which I believe is one of economic justice. Those earning the minimum wage have not had an increase in 10 years. We should ask ourselves today not only about the information in the bill and the data, as important as that is, we should ask ourselves who are these Americans who have not had an increase in 10 long years? Most, of course, we know are adults working full time. In fact, in my home State of Pennsylvania, 71 percent of the workers whose wages would be raised directly by an increase in the minimum wage are adults ages 20 and older. Also, these Americans in many cases are women. Sixty percent of those who would be affected by an increase in the minimum wage are women, working every day to make ends meet, to support their children. In fact, if the minimum wage is raised, 6 million children will benefit. Recently, the Children's Defense Fund reported that a single parent working full time at the current minimum wage of $5.15 an hour earns enough to cover only 40 percent--just 40 percent--of the cost of raising children. Those who earn the minimum wage are not people who are connected to the wealthy and the powerful. They don't have high-paid lobbyists in Washington advocating for them. No, these people are Americans who lead quiet, triumphant lives of struggle and sacrifice, overcoming hardships and setbacks every day. They do hard work, very hard work, such as the waitresses we see every day carrying heavy trays, on their feet hour after hour, as they dream of a better life for themselves and for their children. And at the end of a long day, these Americans return to work and go home at the end of a long day often exhausted, often working not one job but two jobs or three, and the dignity of their labor gives meaning to their lives. We know, and they would tell us that if they were standing here today next to me. So that work they do gives meaning to their lives without a doubt. But no one, no matter how hard they work, can keep pace with the avalanche of cost increases we have seen over the last 10 years. Let me take my colleagues through a couple of those cost increases. Since 1997, congressional pay has increased 24 percent, about $31,000. This has occurred while the value of the minimum wage has been eroded by 20 percent. Let me say that again: Congressional pay up 24 percent, the value of the minimum wage down 20 percent. We cannot say that enough. The cost of living is up 26 percent, the cost of food up 23 percent, the cost of housing up 29 percent, the cost of gasoline up over 130 percent, the cost of health care up 43 percent. Families who are listening to this today know this. The average premium for a family of four costs over $10,000, almost $11,000, which is more than a minimum wage worker earns in a year. The cost of raising a child since 1997 has increased 52 percent; the cost of educating those children has risen 61 percent; the cost of heating a home has increased by 120 percent. What we are talking about here is an issue, indeed, of economic justice. Raising the Federal minimum wage will give our workers more than $4,000 per year. Let's consider what that could buy for a family in America. You can buy almost 2 years of childcare with over $4,000, full tuition at a community college, 2 years of health care, 1 year of groceries, 1\1/2\ years of heat and electricity, and 8 months of rent. That is how we affect, in a positive way, people's lives, the lives of hard-working men and women in America today. Those who argue against an increase in the minimum wage will say that an increase will hurt small business and/or the economy. I do not agree with that because if you look at the data, when the minimum wage was increased in 1997, what happened in the aftermath? Millions and millions of jobs were created and raising the minimum wage did not slow that down one iota. Recently, over 650 economists issued a statement calling for an increase in the minimum wage. We do not have time today to go through that, but it is an important statement from leading economists in America. With an increase in minimum wage, employers will get a lot in return: higher productivity they will get with an increase in the minimum wage; lower turnover; and, of course, increased worker morale. Mr. President, you know as well as I do that more than 28 States now have increased the minimum wage, including my home State of Pennsylvania. In July of this year it will increase to $7.15 an hour, as a result of State legislation. That should not have had to take place. The Federal Government long ago--we are years overdue on this-- should have taken the responsibility for increasing the minimum wage, but that did not happen here in Washington. There were other priorities, other interests, more powerful interests that took precedence. More than 400,000 Pennsylvanians will be affected positively by an increase in the minimum wage. I am thinking of them today as I am of families across America who will be affected positively by an increase in the minimum wage. Yes, I do believe that small businesses across Pennsylvania and America do need help. However, in my judgment, based upon the people to whom I have spoken in my State, the No. 1 priority or the No. 1 burden faced by small business owners, men or women, is the cost, the crushing cost of health care. We need to deliver health care relief to those small businesses, and that as well is long overdue, because those small business owners and their workers deserve the same kind of economic justice I talked about today. I fervently urge support for this legislation, and I appreciate this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 56 now be the pending business.

Mr. CASEY. Yes.

Mr. CASEY. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.