Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CASEY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise with respect to Iran's nuclear program. I commend the Senator from Connecticut, chairman of the Banking Committee, for his presentation a few moments ago. Similar to so many Americans, we have learned a lot in the last couple days that is troubling. The Iranian regime, discredited this summer by the deplorable repression of peaceful prodemocracy demonstrators across the country, has reached a new low on the international stage. Again, I speak of the Iranian regime--the Government--and not the people of Iran. The disclosure of the uranium enrichment facility near the city of Qum should serve as a wakeup call for those who believed Iran's nuclear program was only for peaceful purposes. The regime continues to deceive the international community about its nuclear intentions and program development. It continues to threaten our ally Israel; it continues to disregard its international commitments; and, yes, the regime continues to directly threaten the national security interests of the United States. As the administration begins talks on Thursday, we in the Senate should be prepared to do our part and pass tougher sanctions on the Iranian regime to compel its compliance with international standards. We have a responsibility to provide the administration with the tools it needs to maximize pressure on this increasingly intransigent Iranian regime. I applaud the administration's approach to recalibrating U.S. engagement around the world. At a minimum, this international effort will restore America's long-held reputation of being an honest broker, of a country that values diplomacy and relationships with allies and welcomes new ones. Internationally, the United States is on a better footing than it has been in years. Ties with allies have been strengthened. Those on the fence, such as Russia and China, in this particular question, are showing signs of cooperation on issues that are critical to our national interests. Our adversaries, not sure how to demonize the United States such as they used to do, are on their heels. The administration's diplomatic offensive has put us into a position where we have a strong coalition going into these important discussions on Thursday. The events of the last week are unfortunate evidence of the Iranian regime's deceit, defiance, and disregard for international standards for peace and security. First, on Monday, the Iranian regime sent a letter to the IAEA disclosing the existence of the second enrichment and refining facility, a site that the United States and Israeli intelligence reportedly have tracked for years. This missive denies that the site was intended for nuclear purposes, though the 3,000 centrifuges were clearly meant for weapons-grade refinement. Moreover, the site was buried deep underground and under protection by the elite Revolutionary Guard--not the typical protocol for a peaceful energy site. On Wednesday, the Iranian President, Mr. Ahmadinejad, used his time on the rostrum at the United Nations not to welcome a new day of engagement with the international community but in typical fashion to rail against Israel. This desperate attempt to divert attention from his own internal political problems, as well as his government's deceitful nuclear program, once again showed this regime is not a responsible actor on the world's stage. Iran's people recognized this last June by voting against Mr. Ahmadinejad and his brand of politics. The world witnessed on live television how Mr. Ahmadinejad viewed the democratic process as his people paid dearly for the audacity of their vote. Finally, over the weekend, Iran's news service reported three rounds of missile tests, including those capable of hitting Israel. GEN Hossein Salami, head of the Revolutionary Guard Air Force, said the drills were meant to show that Tehran is prepared to crush any military threat from another country. This erratic display will actually weaken, not strengthen, Iran's hand in Geneva and will hopefully serve to convince our Russian and Chinese friends that the Iranian regime is not a credible actor nor a reliable trading partner. After this disturbing but strangely predictable week of Iranian regime behavior, American negotiators will head to Geneva. This is the first official and direct meeting with Iranian negotiators in 30 years. Leading the American delegation is Ambassador Bill Burns, one of America's most respected diplomats. Having served in Russia, Ambassador Burns is well placed to address the complex international dimensions to this diplomatic problem. We will be well represented in Geneva, and I wish Ambassador Burns and his team all the best in what will surely be a challenging assignment. Iran is not going into these negotiations on sure footing, while the international community has never been more united. Led by the United States, Britain, Germany, and France, opposition to Iran's nuclear program is based in fact, rooted in a willingness to engage, and backed up with a clear and firm message: An Iran with nuclear weapons is unacceptable under any circumstances. Let me repeat. An Iran with nuclear weapons is unacceptable under any circumstances. This message is gaining stronger resonance with Russia and China. The Russian President's comments at the University of Pittsburgh last week indicated a willingness to consider sanctions. This is a potentially remarkable breakthrough because if the Russians are willing to support international sanctions, the Chinese could be left alone among the P5+1 group in that determination. While China relies on Iran for substantial fuel imports, I trust they are carefully weighing their need for energy against Iran's increasingly erratic and irresponsible behavior. The opportunity cost of doing business with this regime has increased considerably and may now be too high a price to pay. I hope the Chinese will support international efforts to pressure this Iranian regime at this critical time with the understanding that these efforts could ultimately result in a more reliable and stable partner in Tehran. It is next to impossible that the Iranian regime will be able to prove that its nuclear sites are for peaceful purposes by this Thursday. The Obama administration needs to be ready to move quickly and build on international momentum created over the past week to pressure this regime. That is why we in the Senate need to be ready to play our part, support the administration, and move on sanctions. We currently have two proposals on Iran pending before us. First, the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act is a measure introduced by Senator Brownback and myself. We introduced this bill last May. This would allow State and local government pension funds to divest from companies that do more than $20 million in business with the Iranian energy sector. The second bill, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, introduced by Senators Bayh and Kyl, explicitly empowers the President to impose new economic sanctions on foreign firms involved in the export of gasoline and other refined petroleum products to the Islamic Republic of Iran. I am cosponsor of this bill, along with more than 75 of my Senate colleagues. The Iran Sanctions Enabling Act is modeled on similar legislation passed in response to the genocide in Sudan. Eighteen State legislatures have passed individual Iran sanction measures, and our legislation would bring these State efforts into line with Federal law. When President Obama was in the Senate, he introduced an earlier version of this legislation. It was right in 2007, and it is right in 2009. Analysts have estimated that Iran requires $20 billion annually in investments for its oil and natural gas sector. This sector directly provides funding for Iran's nuclear program, as well as its support for international terrorism. Iran will only cease its illicit nuclear program, end its support for terrorists in Hamas and Hezbollah, and stop arming militant groups in Iraq when it is compelled to pay an economic price. We are entering a critical phase in President Obama's strategy of engagement with Iran where Tehran will face a true test. I hope the October 1 negotiation will lead to a freeze in Iran's nuclear enrichment efforts and ultimately a nuclear weapons-free Iran. Will the regime accept the President's genuine offer of dialog and comply with international nuclear standards or will it continue a losing strategy that serves to deepen its own isolation? These are questions for the Iranian regime, and they must answer these questions. If last week is any indication, Congress should be prepared to hand the President the leverage he needs to send a message to the regime that America cannot and will not accept an Iran with nuclear weapons. The administration needs all the tools at its disposal to increase pressure on the regime diplomatically, politically, and through more stringent economic sanctions. I call on my colleagues to listen to legislatures in so many States across the country that have passed divestment measures already. The American people do not want anything to do with investing in this regime. Let's pass divestment and petroleum sanctions and send a message to this regime and to the international community that a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, as you can tell from the chart on my left, I rise today to speak about the issue that is probably the No. 1 challenge we face in the Congress today, which is debating and devising solutions for the improvement of our health care system in so many ways. I rise today to talk about some aspects of that and especially not only where we are headed in terms of focusing on both those with insurance and those without insurance but also to focus on some of the goals here. From the beginning, both President Obama and Members of Congress have focused on a couple of priorities--first of all, to reduce costs. We cannot go forward with any health care bill that does not do that, and I think we will do that. We have to reduce costs, but we also have to ensure choices. We have to continue to give the American people the kind of choice they should have a right to expect and give them a sense of a peace of mind in terms of what that choice will mean. We ought to make sure this bill, for example, leads to the following conclusion: You get the treatment you need from the doctor you choose. I think we can do that in the Congress. Thirdly, I think we have to make sure, as we are controlling costs and ensuring choice, that we ensure quality and that we put both quality and prevention in the final bill. They are in the bill I voted for already this summer. The Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, as people know, debated all summer, with hours and hours and hours of debate, accepting Republican and Democratic amendments, sometimes not agreeing, but we voted out a bill that did a lot of what I just talked about. It focused on making sure we are covering more Americans. It protected Americans who have coverage. So many people, as the Presiding Officer knows--whether it is in the State of Illinois or the State of Pennsylvania or any State in the country--even those with insurance, are not secure, even those with insurance feel a sense of instability, a lack of control over their own destiny, sometimes because an insurance company says: We are going to deny you coverage because of a preexisting condition. Why have we permitted that? Why have we tolerated that year after year? Instead of just talking about preventing them from doing that, why haven't we literally made it illegal for an insurance company to do that? We are going to make sure this year we do not just talk about it but we legislate about it and make that part of our law. So we will go through some of those issues, but the first thing I want to highlight is where we are headed if we do not do anything. There are some people in Washington who, to be candid or blunt about it, want to scratch their heads for a couple more years or maybe 10 more years. Here, as shown on this chart, is where we are headed by one estimation. The New America Foundation is the source for this information. But here we are in 2008. When you talk about the cost of an annual premium, OK, it is roughly--and actually we found out the other day that number is a little higher--we can say it is a little more than $13,000 for family coverage. If you look between 2008 and 2016--just 8 years in that estimation, and we are already into 2009-- that premium will rise by more than 83 percent. Why should we allow that to happen when we know we can do something about it this year? So that is one way to look at this in terms of the cost of doing nothing. Also, often people with insurance will say: Well, I have some problems with my insurance. I worry about a preexisting condition, I worry about exorbitant out-of-pocket costs, and I am glad you are working on that and I will support that part of the bill. But they say: Look, if I have coverage, I am worried about giving millions of more Americans coverage without some adverse effect to those who have coverage. Well, let's look at this chart for a little bit of a discussion about this topic: families paying 8 percent surcharge on premiums. If we look at this chart, what this red or red-orange part of the chart shows is a $1,100 hidden tax to cover the cost of uncompensated care for the uninsured. So the idea that those with insurance right now are not paying for those without insurance is ridiculous. Fortunately, in Pennsylvania, that number is a little lower, but it is still 900 bucks. So the idea that somehow if we change the system, improve the existing system, build upon what works but improve the system, that somehow that is going to adversely impact in a cost sense those with insurance--the Center for American Progress did this research--this chart and others show if you have insurance today, you are paying for those without insurance. Right now you are paying for them. We know that right now. So, if anything, broadening the number of Americans who have coverage will actually reduce costs. It will be one of the contributors, I should say, of reducing costs--not the only way but one of the ways we do that. Let me go to the next chart which is a depiction in very simple colors, red and green, about what the existing system does adversely as it relates to women. There are a lot of things that insurance companies do today that we don't like and we have complained about, but now we can do something about it. One is a preexisting condition problem and another one is the out-of-pocket costs and another one is how often insurance policies definitively discriminate against some Americans. This map shows in the orange or red section: gender rating allowed. In other words, insurance practices that lead to policies in States that result in discrimination against women. So you want this chart to show all in the green States where gender rating is banned. What we would like to do with our legislation, one of the goals--and it is in our bill and in the bill we passed this summer, the Affordable Health Choices Act--is to make sure the whole country is green on this issue, green in the sense that we have banned gender rating; that an insurance company can't say, when they are trying to determine how they make up their policy, that if you happen to be a woman, a policy would discriminate against you. Unfortunately, Pennsylvania is a State that has permitted this discrimination, along with all of these other States. So we ought to have a national standard. Very simply: No more discriminating insurance policies against women. It is that simple, folks. What I voted for this summer in the bill we passed was this, along with other provisions. So that is something we shouldn't just talk about for another year or 2 or 5 or 10; let's do something about this now. Let's make this practice illegal this year, and we can do it with the legislation. The next one is an enlarged version of some language. I mentioned preexisting conditions in my remarks today, and we are going to keep mentioning this because this is a reality for millions of Americans in the individual market, the people who have to go it alone. They are not part of the big pool of people getting insurance. They have to go it alone to get insurance. They are the ones who are often most adversely affected by preexisting conditions. Why should we tolerate that? The other point about this chart is, I purposefully put legislative language on it because a lot of people here want to say: Well, this legislation and language gets complicated. Admittedly, some of it does, but this is pretty easy. This is in the bill we passed this summer. I will just read this one sentence. Anyone can understand this. This isn't some complicated legislative language: A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may-- We know what they are; we know exactly what we are talking about here-- not impose any preexisting condition exclusion-- That is in our bill-- with respect to such plan or coverage. Let's do it this year. Let's make it illegal for insurance companies to do this to an individual or to a family or to those who happen to be employees of a small business. So some of this debate gets lost in detail, but this is very simple language taken right out of the bill. Let's go to the next one and our final chart before I conclude. I am going to spend more time on this issue, but I just wanted to spend a couple of minutes on this issue. What happens at the end of this road with regard to health care as it pertains to children, especially children who happen to be poor or children with special needs? What will happen? At the end of the road, when we pass a bill and send it to the President and he signs it--and that is what I hope will happen, of course--will poor children and children with special needs be better off or worse off? That is still a question. That is still an open question we are debating right now. Children are different than those of us who happen to be adults. They are not smaller versions of adults; they are different. Their treatment needs are different. We have to give them different kinds of preventive care. In Medicaid, for example, we give what they call early periodic screening and diagnostic testing, known by the acronym EPSDT. We focus on the special needs of children and give them early diagnosis, early treatment. That is what I am talking about in general. So they aren't small adults. It seems like a simple concept, but we have to say it more than we do. It is clear they have different needs, particularly the ones who are the most disadvantaged. The poor are the ones who could potentially be a lot sicker with the threat of sickness and disease. We make sure they get the highest quality care throughout their childhood. That is a resolution I introduced as a statement of policy. So we are going to continue to debate not just a question of bringing down costs--that is central to what we are trying to do--not just a question of quality, and not only the question of enhancing choice and giving people some stability over their own lives with insurance and those who don't have insurance, giving them some affordable choices-- that is all important, and we are going to spend a lot more time on those questions, but another question we have to address is, what happens at the end of the road for poor children or children with special needs? The rule ought to be very simple: No child in those categories, no child worse off. Four words: No child worse off at the end of this. So we will have a lot more time to continue to debate the legislation and a lot of these important issues. I think the American people want us to act. They don't want us to just debate and not get something done. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I would urge a no vote on this amendment. It sets the wrong precedent and singles out one airport which happens to be in Cambria County, PA. At a time when we are in the middle of a recession and with the unemployment rate in this county at 9.5 percent, and we are going to say here in Washington that we are going to vote on something that will shut down an airport--it is bad policy. We should allow this decision to be made by the Federal authority that should be making the decision, which is the Federal Aviation Administration. It is the right thing to do to oppose this amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Commerce Committee be discharged from further consideration, and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 242.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1677, introduced earlier today.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Feinstein- Bond amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, that the bill as amended be read a third time, passed, that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements be printed at the appropriate place in the Record as if read with the above occurring without intervening action or debate.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 120, S. 1494.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar Nos. 371, 372, and 373; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc and that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; that no further motions be in order; that any statements relating to the nominations appear in the appropriate place in the Record as if read; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I appreciate the statement my colleague, Senator Brown from Ohio, just made about health care. It is a critically important issue we all have been working on. He and I were fortunate to serve this summer and throughout the year, but especially this summer, working on the bill he spoke of--the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee bill. I rise tonight to talk about another significant challenge we face as Americans; that is, the really grave challenge we face in Afghanistan. I had the opportunity this summer toward the end of August to travel to both Afghanistan and Pakistan with Senator Brown of Ohio and his colleague from Ohio, Zack Space, a Member of the House of Representatives. They would agree with me, and I believe most Americans would agree, that when we have troops on the ground in harm's way in such an important part of the world for our security, we must have a very serious debate, a sober deliberation, an objective assessment of where we are right now. The administration has expressed, and I support, the overall goal in Afghanistan to ensure that al-Qaida or any other terrorist group does not gain the sanctuary it requires to plot, plan, or train for another terrorist attack on American soil or against our allies. We have seen the direct impact of an unstable Afghanistan right in my home State of Pennsylvania. Last week, I traveled to Shanksville, PA, in southwestern Pennsylvania, as the world knows now as the place where the plane went down in September of 2001. That was an unspeakable act of terrorism. Thank goodness for this Capitol and for our country that a group of brave Americans took control as best they could and made sure that plane, which was headed for Washington, did not get here. And they gave their lives in that effort. The men responsible for those attacks conducted their planning from Afghanistan, not from anywhere else. It is in our national security interest to make sure that Afghanistan today never again becomes a safe haven for the likes of Osama bin Laden or any other terrorist who may confront us in the future and continues to confront us today. As of this week, at least 822 members of the U.S. military have died in Afghanistan, including 35 from the State of Pennsylvania. Those who gave, in Lincoln's words, ``the last full measure of devotion'' to their country, we are thinking of them and their families tonight, as we do every day. We are also remembering those who have sacrificed time in Afghanistan in this effort and some who have been wounded, so many who have been wounded--thousands have been wounded in just this conflict itself. We turn again to Lincoln when he talked about ``he who has borne the battle''--in the modern context of that, him or her, fighting men and women on the ground in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and other places around the world. We are thinking of them tonight, and we pray for them. But we also pray for ourselves that we may be worthy of their valor. I know there have been a lot of reports lately and discussions about what has been happening in Afghanistan. We have seen recent reports of heavy Taliban activity across 80 percent of Afghanistan. That doesn't mean they control 80 percent, but there is a lot of activity in 80 percent. That number is up from 72 percent in November 2008 and way up from 54 percent a year before that. That is just their activity. But a substantial Taliban presence, one or more attacks per month--that is the measurement of this--was seen in another 17 percent of the country. It is critical that we have taken measures to recalibrate our efforts in Afghanistan. General McChrystal, a great military leader, a great mind, with whom we had a chance to spend some time on our trip, was confirmed by the Senate in June to take command of NATO and U.S. operations in Afghanistan and arrived in Afghanistan a few weeks later. General McChrystal recently submitted his strategic review to the White House, and we look forward to hearing the results of that review. We need to give General McChrystal and his team an opportunity to implement his strategy and to put it into action. That has just begun over the last couple several months. Having spent so much of the last 8 years since September 11, 2001, not focused on Afghanistan, we cannot expect results there overnight. This is why I stand in support of Chairman Carl Levin, the chairman of our Armed Services Committee, of his call for an expansion, a rapid expansion of the Afghan national security forces, both the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police. I traveled with Chairman Levin in May of 2008 to both countries, and I learned on that trip and many days before and after that trip of his leadership, his experience, and his understanding of the issues we confront in both Afghanistan and Pakistan and other places around the world. I believe his understanding of these issues is unparalleled. There may be some here who know as much, but few could make the case they know more. I have confidence in Carl Levin's assessment of where we are today and his recommendations for where we should go in the future. In July, General McChrystal assessed that the Afghan Army could expand from 134,000 troops to about 240,000, and the police force could go from 92,000 personnel to about 160,000 personnel by 2013. Chairman Levin wishes to see those same numbers but on a shorter timeline, to be accomplished in 2012. So that is something we should debate here. But I think any acceleration, any strategy that gets us to a higher number of Afghan Army and Afghan national police at a faster rate is what we have to be committed to. Because of low levels of literacy and experience, in some cases, it will take time to build a competent Afghan officer corps--the highest level of training in the Army. This will require that we use every possible resource and enhanced U.S. training capacity to get the job done. To get to those numbers will not be easy, but I believe we can do it, and so do officials in the Afghan Government. While in Afghanistan last month, I met with Defense Minister Wardak and the Interior Minister, Mr. Atmar, who both feel confident they can adequately accelerate training of these security forces. There is a growing insistence here in the Congress and across the country that the Afghan Government begin to assume more responsibility for its own security. In my visit to Afghanistan just after the recent Afghan Presidential election, I met with President Karzai and explained that the United States does not plan an open-ended commitment to Afghanistan. The Afghan Government, whether led by Hamid Karzai or anyone else, needs to recognize the critical need to provide security, goods, and services to the Afghan people. While we certainly are committed to assistance and development, it is ultimately the responsibility of the Afghan Government--the government itself--to reform and rebuild the country. Good governance and the fight against corruption are crucial elements to garnering public support and strengthening the effort against the extremist forces in the country. An Afghan public that can trust its government not to steal from them is more likely to support this hard-fought counterinsurgency effort-- the effort that General McChrystal has talked about and will continue to tell us about. I have to be very candid, though--and I have said this publicly already in different ways--that when I asked President Karzai specific questions about what we can tell the American people about his efforts going back a number of years, including his efforts at present--on a lot of these critical questions, such as, how are you doing on delivering services to your people; how are you doing on anticorruption efforts; how are you doing on improving your governance--he had, at best, inadequate answers to those questions. I was much more impressed, candidly, by his ministers--Minister Wardak and Minister Atmar--who are charged with the responsibility for the army and the police. That is the good news, despite the bad news I just reported about President Karzai, in my judgment. It is only my opinion, but I have met with him twice and I have read a lot about him. Our challenge in Afghanistan comes not only from a resurgent Taliban but development needs across the country. Farmers grow poppy because they can get a good rate of return and because the Taliban threatens them if they do not. Basic development projects are threatened and extorted by Taliban forces. U.S. political relationships with local officials are often tenuous, as these leaders are often the main targets of Taliban attacks--brutal attacks and threats on people's lives, on their families, and on their property. That is one reason why the courageous work of the Provincial Reconstruction Teams--the so-called PRTs--is essential to our success. These teams, composed of able and brave personnel from USAID, the Department of State, and the Department of Agriculture, supported by the U.S. military, are on the front lines of providing security such that political and development progress can flourish in these places across Afghanistan. These teams are operating in the most difficult environments in the country, and I want to thank them for their remarkable efforts and their sacrifice in contributing to our mission. I know General McChrystal not only respects and appreciates but works closely with all of these parts of our government that are doing such a great job for us. While the enhanced presence of Afghan forces is our ultimate goal, these Provincial Reconstruction Teams are a substantial part of how we are going to get there. This approach is comprehensive and smart, but it does require time. The courageous work performed by the PRTs, combined with an enhanced effort by the Afghan national security forces, I believe, can finally put us in a position where a stable Afghanistan is achievable. The challenge is not limited to Afghanistan and the Obama administration has adopted the correct holistic approach to include Pakistan, the neighbor to the east of Afghanistan. We have begun to rebuild important ties with the Pakistani Government based on trust and a common understanding that extremist forces are a serious threat to the Pakistani state, and not an asset to be expended on its other national security interests. In Congress, we have also worked to ensure that our relationship with Pakistan is based on mutual trust and a commitment to build links at all levels of Pakistani and American society; among governments but also with nongovernmental organizations--academics, businessmen and businesswomen, humanitarian workers, and across the board. We have a lot of Pakistani Americans who are helping us do this. While we will also maintain our support for Pakistani's military, this new multitiered approach will be critical to building the solid foundation for a new relationship between our two countries--the United States and Pakistan. Despite our efforts to deepen our relationship, the news from Pakistan in recent days has not been encouraging. We are happy that they took the fight into the Swat Valley and had success there. Thank goodness they did that. But when I say the recent days, I mean the last several days and weeks. Over the weekend, Pakistan's Government announced the sacking of more than 700 police working in the Khyber tribal region. These police were fired after not showing up for work because they were threatened by militant leaders in the region. This is not a new trend in Pakistan. Two years ago, hundreds of police resigned under threat from local Taliban forces in the Swat Valley. So we have to monitor this, as we do developments in Afghanistan. Without the basic security provided by the police in these volatile border areas, the difficulty of our efforts is compounded. I hope that the Pakistani national government can do more to properly train and equip these important front-line defenses against extremist elements in Pakistan and/or the border region. Human rights questions have been raised in recent days in news accounts. That is also a concern we have. I had the opportunity, as well as Senator Brown and Congressman Space, when we were there, to visit a camp where they are taking care of those who were displaced by the fighting in the Swat Valley--so-called IDP camps, internally displaced person camps. So far, that effort has met with success, and thank goodness the Pashtun tradition in Pakistan has meant as many as 80 percent of the people displaced were taken into homes and the government and military didn't have to help them directly, not until they had to go back to their homes and their communities. We also had a chance to meet with General Kiyani, a very strong and capable military leader, who gave us a briefing on the efforts against the Pakistani Taliban. I believe our national security--literally the safety of our families from another grievous attack here in the United States--depends on our success in South Asia. I applaud Chairman Carl Levin for his vision and leadership on this important issue at this critical time, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. We ought to have a full debate in the Senate, in the House, and across America about troop levels. We are not there yet. There has been no recommendation made by the administration beyond the 17,000 combat troops and the 4,000 trainers, but it is never too early to start an important debate about troop levels. We also should debate and continue to get more information about evaluating the progress we are making there. President Obama and his administration are committed to doing that. They have presented to the Congress a series of metrics or benchmarks--pick your word--weighing and evaluating how we are doing on our progress there. A series of tough questions has to be asked on a frequent basis. They have to be answered by the administration if Congress is going to be satisfied with our support, both military and nonmilitary. I believe we can get this right if we debate it, if we ask tough questions and demand answers to those tough questions of the administration, of the military, and any other question that Congress and the American people want to have asked and answered. Finally, I mentioned the great work General McChrystal and our fighting men and women are doing every day of the week across the world in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq, but let me also highlight, before I conclude, three people on the ground there who are leading our efforts on the nonmilitary side representing our State Department: General Eikenberry, a great military leader who is serving as our Ambassador to Afghanistan and who is doing great work there; Ambassador Paterson in Pakistan, who has served now in that capacity under two administrations working very hard in a difficult situation in Pakistan; and finally, Ambassador Holbrooke, who has served this country in a number of capacities, now put in charge of monitoring the work and being a constructive force in both countries--both Afghanistan and Pakistan. We are grateful for their public service, their commitment to our security, the commitment to our troops they have made, and the commitment to getting this right so the American people can have confidence in this policy going forward. We are not there yet. We are just beginning a full debate. But I would urge our colleagues here to pay close attention and to continue to ask these questions so we can make sure that Afghanistan is stable-- as we hope for Pakistan as well--so we can protect our people from another terrorist attack or the threat of that kind of an attack. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to an amendment proposed by my colleague from South Carolina. The amendment is No. 2410. I believe this amendment sets a dangerous precedent for a number of reasons. First of all, it singles out one airport, which happens to be an airport in southwestern Pennsylvania, in Cambria County on the southwestern corner of our State. It is important to note about this particular debate on this amendment that none of the funds in the underlying bill we are talking about here provide for direct funding to this airport. In my view, the decision as to whether this particular airport should receive funding should be left to the Federal Aviation Administration. The Senator from South Carolina noted that the airport received funding under the America Recovery and Reinvestment Act, known as the stimulus bill. Let me read something from the spokesperson from the U.S. Department of Transportation. This spokesperson said: ``The bottom line is it,'' meaning this airport, ``deserved the money based on the merits.'' ``It,'' meaning the funding under the recovery bill, ``is not an earmark.'' The Essential Air Service Program, which as many here know was created by Congress in 1978 to help small airports--we have a lot of them in Pennsylvania, and we need them--to survive after airline deregulation. That is the primary source of Federal funding for the airport in this case, not an earmark, not a congressional earmark. According to Congressional Quarterly, more than 150 airports across the country qualify for this assistance and many of the 150 airports have a higher per-passenger subsidy with lower passenger loads than the airport we are talking about here, the Johnstown Airport. Let me say in conclusion, the city of Johnstown, as well as the wider Cambria County region but especially this county--and so many places have been hit hard in this recession, but historically this particular community has been hit very hard. In the 14 labor regions of our State where they measure unemployment, very often the Johnstown labor market has the highest in the State. If it is not the highest unemployment, it is often in the top three. This is a community that has suffered tremendously over many decades with job loss. When we consider what happens when people go to an airport, sometimes it is not just civilians. A lot of military personnel leave from an airport such as this. Johnstown, PA, including Cambria County, PA, has transported on a per capita basis as many or more soldiers in Iraq, for example, than almost anyplace in the country. So this is a community that has contributed mightily to the success of this country under adverse economic circumstances. The least we should do is not target this community and target this airport in the midst of a debate on such a significant Transportation appropriations bill. So we are grateful for this opportunity. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent 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 be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 270 submitted earlier today.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. 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 interviewing action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. As a point of clarification with respect to the agreement governing consideration of H.R. 3288, if a new substitute amendment has to be offered, no amendments would be in order to that amendment.

Mr. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent that the previous order regarding H.R. 3288 be modified to provide that the Senate resume consideration of the bill at 2 p.m. Thursday, September 17, and then the remaining provisions of the order remain in effect.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow, Thursday, September 17; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then proceed to a period of morning business for 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the final half; that following morning business, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 98, H.R. 2996, the Interior appropriations bill.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Tomorrow at 2 p.m., the Senate will suspend consideration of the Interior appropriations bill in order to complete action on the Transportation-HUD appropriations bill. At 2 p.m., the Senate will proceed to a series of up to six rollcall votes, including passage of the Transportation-HUD appropriations bill.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. 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 statement related to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 271 submitted earlier today.