Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise to speak about a challenge that is confronting our middle-class families all across my home State of Pennsylvania and across the country. The Presiding Officer knows this issue well and has worked tirelessly to enact measures of public policy to confront this problem. We have an opportunity now with her leadership, as well as other leaders in the Senate, to work together on what I think is the kind of legislation that will help those middle- income families. The Bank on Students Emergency Refinancing Act, of which I am a proud cosponsor, is an opportunity for the Senate, folks in both parties who hear from middle-class families all the time about a range of issues. I doubt there is any issue we hear about more often than the cost of higher education. So I wish--as I am sure many other Members of this body do--to ensure that every student in our States, and for me every student in Pennsylvania, gets something very fundamental, a fair shot to attend college and reach their full potential. The bill we are considering would help students who have private and public loans in good standing from before July 1 of 2013. It allows them the chance to refinance those loans at a 3.6 percent interest level, the level that was agreed to in last summer's bipartisan student loan compromise. This compromise, as we might remember, passed the Senate overwhelmingly, 81 to 18. With interest rates near record lows, homeowners, businesses, and even local governments with good credit regularly can refinance their debts, but few if any students have that same option. Why should more Americans not be helped by the opportunity to pay a lower interest rate? That is a question I think we all ask tonight and in the days we are debating this issue. More than 40 million Americans owe almost $1.2 trillion in student loan debt, much more than is owed, for example, on credit cards. According to the Institute for College Access & Success, as of the year 2012 Pennsylvania ranked third in the Nation in the highest average student debt indicated--nearly $32,000 per student is the number in Pennsylvania--and 70 percent of graduates in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania leave college with debt, the fourth highest of any State in the Union. Too many young Americans cannot get ahead because they cannot get out from under the burden of student debt. Because of their debt, many Americans are unable to buy a home, save for retirement, start a business or even start a family. This hurts the economy terribly and it makes the American dream so much harder for young Americans to reach. At an 18-year low, the rate of home ownership among young people has been cut in half since 2001. A recordbreaking number of young adults are still living in their parents' homes. This high level of student debt makes it harder for entrepreneurs to start new businesses and create jobs. Entrepreneurial activity among 20- to 34-year-olds is at the lowest level in 20 years. We know this bill can help at least 1.2 million Pennsylvanians and more than 25 million across the Nation, according to the Department of Education. Based on calculations from the Congressional Research Service, a typical Pennsylvanian who owed the State average, nearly $32,000 in student debt, would be able to save more than $4,000 over the life of their loan. This bill would not only save millions for Americans, but the bill itself would save the Federal Government more than $14 billion over 10 years, based on figures from the Congressional Budget Office. A college education, we all know, is the surest path to middle-class success and is still the best investment a student can make. Getting a college degree opens the door to job opportunities for the average worker. That means $1 million more in earnings over a lifetime compared to those who only go as high as a high school diploma. So college education is indeed tied directly to the economic success of young people across the country. This bill is a step in the right direction and would do much to tackle the problem of student loan debt. However, Congress and the Nation still have a lot of work to do to make college affordable for all of our children. What we are talking about is something very fundamental. All we are asking is that the House and the Senate, both parties, come together to give students and their families just a fair shot. That is all they are asking for. They are basically saying to us, especially middle-class families are saying to us: You folks in Washington talk all the time about the middle class, but you need to act on our behalf. Unfortunately, they do not see enough action coming out of Washington that directly impacts their lives, that directly has an impact on their economic fortune, their economic future. This is one of those rare opportunities with one vote, with one bill we can have a substantial positive impact on the lives of literally millions of Americans as soon as the bill is enacted into law. I would venture to say that when you talk to any middle-class family, if student loans and the cost of college is not the No. 1 issue they mention, it is certainly in the top two or three. For most middle-class families it is No. 1. Yet they have not seen much in the way of direct action that we can take in Washington to provide a measure of relief-- not a magic wand, not eliminating all the pressure and all the worries that people have when it comes to affording college. This is one bill that can provide some relief, some needed relief, especially when young people are trying to buy a home, invest in their families, start a business, and begin their life after higher education. I ask that we all come together on this legislation and provide a measure of relief to middle-class families and, by virtue of doing that, a badly needed injection into our economy. I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this morning just before the noon hour to talk about our children, a topic which does not get nearly enough attention in Washington. I will try to focus on just one issue. Both parties in this body and in the other body indicate, on a pretty frequent basis, that they are in favor of supporting strategies to protect and to help our children, but not enough attention is paid to what that strategy should be and what the elements of it should be. I believe it should at least have four major components. One is to make sure children have every opportunity for more early learning. In addition, we need to make sure more children are covered by health insurance and get quality health care. We made a lot of strides in that in the last couple of decades, but we still have a ways to go. We need to make sure children are protected, an issue I will speak about today in particular. Obviously, we want to put in place better strategies to make sure children have enough to eat and are eating food that is nutritious. So today I will focus on the question of protection. We know that as we head into the last couple of days of the school year, children are starting to look forward to summer activities such as camp and summer sports and other activities. That is the good news. The bad news is that can create opportunities for people who would do them harm. It is important to reiterate the responsibility adults have generally but in particular at this time of the year. Adults have an abiding responsibility to protect children from harm and to speak up, literally to speak up when they suspect a child is a victim of abuse or neglect. We know many cases of abuse and neglect go unreported, sometimes for years, sometimes even until a child has died or suffered other terrible consequences as a result of years of neglect or abuse. For example, in 2012, in Pennsylvania there were 3,565 substantiated reports of child abuse and neglect. Across the Nation, 678,047 children were victims of abuse and neglect in the country as a whole, although I think it is important to point out the number I read from Pennsylvania: 3,565 substantiated reports of child abuse and neglect. That means two things: It was reported, and we know the overwhelming number do not get reported. So even among the category of those that were reported, they had to be substantiated reports of abuse and neglect. I believe if we had just a broad category of children in our State--and it is true of a lot of other States as well--who are the victims of abuse and neglect, it would far exceed 3,565 cases, but that number alone is horrific and should cause us to do a lot more than we are doing, not just in Pennsylvania but around the country. We saw in Pennsylvania a horrific example. Many people read the news about Penn State over the last couple of years. In that case, children were being abused by an individual they were supposed to be able to trust, an authority figure and other authority figures who did little about reporting it. We know there is a significant variation across the country in the types or categories of adults who are required by law to report suspected or known child abuse and neglect. Not all States require, for example, camp counselors to be so-called mandated reporters under the law, meaning an adult who has a legal duty by statute to report on child abuse or suspected child abuse. Some States have a long list of categories, some States have shorter lists. We know not all States require camp counselors or even coaches to report instances. So we need to do something about that. That is why I have introduced legislation to directly address it. The Speak Up to Protect Every Abused Kid Act, which is more simply known as the Speak Up Act, would require all States to pass and enforce a law requiring adults with a professional responsibility to children to report instances of known or suspected child abuse in order for States to receive funding through the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, the so-called CAPTA legislation, the Federal statute that focuses on child abuse and neglect prevention and response. So if they are going to have the benefit of those Federal dollars, they have to do more to protect children. That is what we are saying to States. The legislation will close a loophole that allows abusers to get away with heinous crimes and emphasize the responsibility of all adults to protect children from abuse and neglect. States have a wide variety of standards, as I mentioned, for whom they designate as so-called mandated reporters. Some States require all medical professionals to be mandated reporters. Others only specify certain types of health care providers. Under the Speak Up Act, States would have to require all of these adults to be mandated reporters or forfeit their Federal funding under the so-called CAPTA Act, the Child Abuse and Prevention Treatment Act. The Speak Up Act also requires that these mandated reporters give their reports directly to State authorities responsible for investigating child abuse and neglect. In some States, and in Pennsylvania I am pleased to report, there is a unified system of reporting, which is called the ChildLine, that accepts all reports. In this case, in Pennsylvania, one could call an 800 number and report child abuse and neglect. I have asked myself--and I am not sure we will ever get the answer to this--what if--not only in a random set of cases but in the case of Penn State--one adult or more than one adult had called an 800 number early in the case history, even with a suspicion, reason, or grounded in fact, but a suspicion or direct evidence of child abuse? What if they had called that number. Could children have been protected; could child abuse have been prevented? I don't know the answer, but I think if more people use that kind of method, they might be able to prevent a lot more cases of abuse. Other States may require reporting to law enforcement or so-called child protective agencies. Finally, the act itself, the Speak Up Act, closes a loophole in an existing law that can leave children in danger because their abuser is from another State or because a child was visiting another State when he or she was abused. In the summer this becomes especially relevant when children may be attending camps where they are not just going back and forth to camp--a camp where they stay overnight, night after night, or other programs where they might have access to or be enrolled in, I should say, another State. Under the Speak Up Act, we make it clear that the State where the incident occurred has the obligation to investigate the incident, and other States must help if necessary. So that gives a further protection to children that is not in the law today. The legislation in the Speak Up Act will provide as well standard reporting requirements across all States while still allowing States to go beyond what is required if they seek to do that. I don't know why we don't have this in law already. Why should we have a variety of measures in place to protect children? We should standardize that. Every State should meet a certain minimum standard when it comes to protecting children. If States want to add people to their mandated reporter list, require more adults or more categories of adults to be listed, then they could do that, but there should be a standard reporting requirement across the country. So as we begin the summer, I urge adults who work with children to remember their responsibility to speak up and to act to protect children, to make sure they know how to report abuse and neglect, if necessary. If you are in that category of mandated reporters already, you obviously not only have a legal duty to report, but I think you have a responsibility to find out today how you report, what method will you employ, what resource will you access to report instances of child abuse or suspected child abuse. But even if you are not sure you are in that category of mandated reporter, if you are an adult and you have an obligation to or your job entails working with children, I believe you have an obligation to find out not only when you are a mandated reporter but how you can report suspected cases of abuse and neglect. Of course, if you are an adult, it may not be legally required. It doesn't, of course, foreclose the possibility that you could and should report instances of abuse and neglect, even if you don't have a legal duty. I believe every adult has some kind of duty--maybe not in law but certainly a duty as a citizen and as an adult--to be vigilant, to keep your eyes open, and to focus your attention on protecting children. We all have an abiding obligation. This is a time of the year when children have a lot of time away from school, and they have a lot of enjoyment in the summer. We should make sure we are being very vigilant, though, at this time of the year to speak up and to protect our children. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise this afternoon to speak about the impact of this week's announcement that members of China's People's Liberation Army hacked into the computer systems owned by Pennsylvania companies to steal trade secrets on our trade policy. As we all know, a grand jury in Pittsburgh indicted five individuals for hacking into several companies' computers and a labor organization, United Steelworkers, in western Pennsylvania. The companies included Westinghouse Electric, Alcoa, U.S. Steel and, as I mentioned, the United Steelworkers union. According to reports, the individuals in the indictment are accused of stealing trade secrets to benefit Chinese industry, which is heavily sponsored by the Chinese Government. This is just the latest example of the unlevel playing field to which our domestic firms are subjected. To give an example, Pennsylvania, as are many areas around the United States, is experiencing an energy renaissance--Pennsylvania natural gas--which stands to greatly benefit the Commonwealth's economy. For the steel industry, it means the opportunity to sell a lot of pipe to natural gas drilling sites. Our foreign competitors also see this opportunity and have responded by aggressively pursuing our market. This competition is expected and would be OK if--if--it was fair. Of course, in this instance it is not. In fact, our domestic steel industry is facing a new crisis. After successfully beating back unfair competition from the Chinese, our domestic producers are facing a surge of imports from around the globe. According to a recent report by the Economic Policy Institute, domestic steel imports increased by almost 13 percent from 2011 to 2013. Without action, we stand to lose half a million jobs around the United States and some 35,000 in Pennsylvania alone. Just from this action, just from them flooding our markets in a way that is illegal and unfair, half a million jobs could be lost. We can't afford to send these good-paying jobs overseas. We should act to level the playing field for our domestic steel industry by aggressively enforcing our trade laws and providing essential relief to this critical industry. For too long unfair trade practices and economic policies have cost jobs in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and across the country. I will return now to the recent indictment I mentioned at the outset of my remarks. This move is further evidence of China's anticompetitive trade practices. What I just said is an understatement. These trade practices have taken a dramatic toll on Pennsylvania businesses and pose a threat to our national security. The Obama administration has taken steps to crack down on China, but we must also pursue congressional action. We know that currency manipulation continues to take a huge toll on U.S. businesses. Last Congress, the Senate passed a tough bill to help level the playing field for our companies by holding countries that undervalue their currency accountable. The House failed to take up this important bill. We must take action. I am an original cosponsor of the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act of 2013. I call on all Senators to turn our attention to this bill to send a strong message to the Chinese Government that they cannot continue to cheat our companies. When China cheats, we lose jobs. It is that simple. The evidence is overwhelming. Our bipartisan bill will help American manufacturers and workers by clarifying that our trade enforcement laws can and should be used to address currency undervaluation. More broadly, the bill would improve oversight by establishing objective criteria to identify misaligned currencies. Also, it would impose tough consequences for offenders. I believe strongly that before proceeding with our busy trade agenda, as some might want to do, and passing additional trade agreements or fast-track legislation, we should take a close look at our trade enforcement policies first, including aggressively addressing currency manipulation. Pennsylvania companies are some of the best in the world, and I am committed to cracking down on unfair trade practices that hurt their ability to compete. Madam President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 125th Anniversary of the Johnstown Flood, one of the most unforgettable tragedies in our Nation's history. This anniversary reminds us of the delicacy of human life, the great importance of caring for others, and the true resilience that was demonstrated by those who endured the catastrophe. At approximately 3:00 p.m. on Friday, May 31, 1889, the South Fork Dam, built to hold back a portion of the Conemaugh River, gave way, releasing 20 million tons of water into the valley below. The wall of water rushed towards the City of Johnstown, 15 miles to the southwest, picking up large quantities of debris and sweeping away whole towns. It finally hit Johnstown just after 4:00 p.m. The flood event and ensuing typhoid outbreak claimed 10 percent of Johnstown's citizens; 2,209 people lost their lives, including 396 children and 99 whole families, resulting in the largest loss of civilian life in a single day until the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The tragedy left our Nation and larger global family in shock. The Johnstown Flood was the largest news story of its day and resulted in the single largest international humanitarian fundraising effort to date, with donations contributed from 13 countries. Clara Barton and five Red Cross workers arrived from Washington, DC, on June 5, 1889, making the Johnstown Flood the first major peacetime relief effort for the American Red Cross. Barton stayed until October 24, 1889, supervising the distribution of supplies and helping more than 25,000 people. The Governor of Pennsylvania called on his constituents to rebuild and reopen the rail lines that had been wiped away. Within 14 days, 20 miles of railway reopened ensuring access to the lifesaving supplies arriving from the surrounding region. During this anniversary we can recall these examples as just a few of countless stories of heroism. The survivors lived on to rebuild Johnstown. More importantly, they established a spirit of endurance that would live on in future generations. The flood is a part of the history of Johnstown that will not be forgotten. The people of Johnstown and the Conemaugh Valley exhibit an indescribable human strength that rises above devastation and exhibits a true example of hope and determination during difficult times.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Thank you, Madam President. I rise to talk about the legislation we are considering, the so-called EXPIRE Act, and we want to make sure that as we are focusing on the policy--and I will get to that in a moment--we highlight for emphasis that this was a measure that came out of the Senate Finance Committee in a bipartisan fashion. In fact, it was unanimous coming out of the committee. We had a good discussion and debate about various tax provisions that we wanted to extend for 2 more years, and because of that there was a great interest in the subject matter. Rarely have we seen the kind of bipartisan support that we have seen in the committee for these tax provisions, and I think that bipartisanship will continue as we move forward with the legislation on the floor. The bill came out of our committee recently and it does enjoy bipartisan support. I wish to concentrate on the small business provision. As you know, if you went down the list of these extensions of tax provisions generically known as tax extenders, you could cover a huge array of subjects by virtue of the whole bill. I am going to focus for a couple minutes on the small business provisions. We often hear from small business owners--and I hear it all the time in Pennsylvania and I am sure others hear it in their home States as well--about the lack of certainty. Frequently, business owners say they don't have certainty about where their business will go next because of what Washington has not been getting done. One of the reasons it is so important to get this bill passed in a bipartisan fashion--that alone is a measure of certainty for folks seeing so much partisanship here, but also giving a timeframe of 2 years helps alleviate uncertainty as well. It is an especially urgent issue when it comes to small business owners. They don't often have the capacity to go out and hire a lot of experts to help them with compliance, to help them understand or deal with on a regular basis tax provisions or substantial changes in health care and public policy. So having a measure of certainty is a significant issue in the life of a small business owner. All too often we minimize the impact of tax incentives by failing to renew critical provisions in a timely manner. Business owners need that basic certainty, which is why the work we have done on small business issues is particularly significant. I am proud of the work Senator Collins of Maine and I have done to introduce legislation which would allow small businesses to plan for capital investment that is so vital to job creation. This commonsense proposal would introduce certainty to businesses, especially small businesses, increase economic activity and the pace of job creation. A number of the provisions in the bill that I have worked on with Senator Collins are in the EXPIRE Act, the legislation we are dealing with on the floor. I believe we have to create a favorable environment in order for businesses to make investments that create jobs and grow the economy. Small businesses are vital to our economy. That said, I am not sure we often fully understand how significant an impact small business has on the country, when we consider that small firms comprise more than 98 percent of all employers. Nearly half of the Pennsylvania workforce is on their payroll, to get a sense of the dimensions, reach and scope of small businesses in a State such as Pennsylvania, but of course that is true across the Nation. Small firms nationally employ just over half of the private sector workforce, according to the Small Business Administration. Small businesses also have led the charge to put America back to work. According to the SBA, small businesses have created 64 percent of the net new jobs over the past 15 years. Again, we sometimes don't fully appreciate the impact of small business. The most recent monthly employment report by the payroll processor ADP showed that small- and medium-sized firms accounted for more than 80 percent of the job growth in January of this year. So a short-term recent number of job creation, small business is accounting for 80 percent of that, but even when we look at a longer period of time, over the past 15 years, small business is creating 64 percent of the net new jobs. So we need to do everything we can in the Senate and the House to invest in strategies that will help small businesses so they can grow and invest. Unfortunately, many tax provisions affecting small businesses have recently been enacted on an unpredictable and temporary basis. That is an understatement. When we talk about certainty or uncertainty, this is part of what we are talking about. This uncertainty directly and substantially hinders economic growth and job creation. When businesses don't know how their investments will be taxed, they cannot make long- term planning decisions with confidence. You don't have to be a small business owner to understand that it is especially difficult for a small business owner to hire a legion of lawyers, accountants or other professionals to help them. Sometimes a small business owner does everything. You know the old expression ``chief cook and bottle washer.'' They do everything. They don't have the luxury of hiring a compliance team for every issue, and it is especially difficult in this uncertain environment. So this uncertainty about tax policy disproportionately harms these small businesses. We often say these are the firms that are the backbone of the American economy. Yet they don't have the luxury that larger firms do to have a team of experts around them or a team they can retain. The National Federation of Independent Business says that compliance costs are 67 percent higher for small firms than larger ones. The Small Business Administration claims that tax paperwork is the most expensive paperwork burden on small businesses, at $74 an hour. So they are paying $74 an hour in terms of tax compliance paperwork, and their overall compliance costs are 67 percent higher than large firms. This legislation includes several provisions intended to immediately reduce the uncertainty about the Tax Code and encourage businesses to grow and invest and hire. These measures have bipartisan support and adopt proposals from both parties. One measure includes a 15-year straight-line depreciation schedule for restaurant leaseholds and retail improvements. In April last year Senator Cornyn from Texas and I introduced a bill that contains this provision which has bipartisan support. If a restaurant wanted to add a new room with 5 or 10 tables in a service space, that is a pretty big investment. They have to build, grow, and spend a lot of money to do that. There is a depreciation benefit provided to that business which historically has been over the course of 39 years. Recently we shrunk that timeframe down to 15 years. Instead of giving little, tiny slices of depreciation, the benefit is more substantial over the course of 15 years, and the bottom line is we want it to stay at 15 years and not go back to the 39 years. I am not sure what the benefit would be if someone added a couple of tables to their restaurant in 2014 and had to wait 39 years to reap that benefit. So the legislation Senator Cornyn and I have would maintain that 15- year cost recovery provision and make it permanent. The bill addresses this, albeit for a 2-year timeframe instead of the current year. We know this faster so-called cost recovery is directly reflected in the company's bottom line and frees cash that can be used to expand operations and hire more workers. It stands to reason if you have a greater tax benefit, you have more dollars in your hand, so to speak, and as a restaurant owner you can hire more workers in the near term. So maximizing certainty within the Tax Code is an expressed benefit for these small businesses. A study from the National Restaurant Association found that uncertainty over depreciation and other tax provisions forced restaurants to forgo improvement projects that would have produced approximately 200,000 jobs nationwide. I would submit that if that number were cut in half it would be a significant number, but their estimate is that in essence we are forgoing 200,000 jobs because of tax uncertainty. Another provision of the bill that we are debating and discussing would make permanent the maximum allowable deduction under section 179, expensing rules. Section 179 allows taxpayers to deduct certain capital asset purchases in the year they make the purchase. This type of expensing provides an important incentive for businesses to make capital investments. Without it taxpayers would have to depreciate those asset purchases over multiple years, getting a much more short- term benefit because of that tax provision. This maximum allowable deduction under 179 has changed three times in the past 6 years. That is one of the best examples of uncertainty, when things keep changing and the numbers keep changing. One year they can take advantage of one- half million dollars of benefit if they bought new equipment, for example. What we want to do--I think what is the best policy is to set it at a fairly high level, I would argue one-quarter of a million dollars----

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 more minutes.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 1:45 p.m. be equally divided.

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.

Mr. CASEY. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I rise this afternoon to discuss the recent events in Syria and the United States' response to the crisis. Yesterday I had the opportunity to meet with President Ahmad Jarba of the Syrian National Coalition to hear firsthand about the Assad regime's intolerable violations of international law and human rights norms. I will begin by reviewing the situation as it stands today. More than 3 years since the fighting first began, the conflict in Syria rages on. The fighting has driven more than 2.4 million refugees out of the country and displaced 6.5 million more Syrians inside of Syria itself. The violence is so terrible that the United Nations has stopped estimating the death toll. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, at least 150,000 Syrians have been killed. This conflict has had a disproportionate effect on children in Syria. A Save the Children report indicates that at least 1.2 million children have fled to neighboring countries while about 10,000 have died in the violence. The Assad regime has used every available tactic to terrorize the Syrian people. Some civilians have resorted to eating grass as desperately needed humanitarian and food aid has been withheld from besieged communities. The whir of helicopter blades above portends barrel bomb strikes that we have heard so much about that could easily land on a school, a hospital or an apartment block. For example, on April 30, Assad's air force dropped a barrel bomb on an elementary school in Aleppo. This attack killed 25 children. This kind of activity by the Assad regime is, in a word, intolerable. Yesterday the remaining opposition fighters in Homs, once an opposition stronghold, were evacuated under U.N. supervision. If my colleagues here in the Senate have not yet seen the images of Homs, I would urge each of them to take a look at them. The ancient city of Homs is absolutely destroyed. In the midst of this, Mr. Assad declared his candidacy for reelection. Although presidential elections in Syria have never been free and fair, this one that he has declared his candidacy for is a farce, and we can add other words to that as well. This is an attempt by Mr. Assad to legitimize the extension of his brutal rule. Bashar al-Assad lost his legitimacy a long time ago. What concerns me and so many others is this: Assad believes he is winning. He believes he can starve, bomb, and terrorize the Syrian people into submission. In light of all this it is incumbent upon the United States to take action to change or at least to help to change the momentum on the battlefield. Our national security interests are clear and have become even more clear in recent days. First, the Iranian regime's status as the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism is well established, and its proxies have perpetrated attacks against the United States, Israel, and our allies. Emboldened by the Iranian regime's support, Hezbollah has conducted attacks against U.S. targets and western interests. The Assad regime has been an important conduit between Iran and Hezbollah. As such, they are fighting side-by-side with the regime forces in Syria and providing the regime much needed supplies and financial assistance. It is also abundantly clear that Russia simply does not share our interests in the region. I guess that is an understatement. Russia has continued to back the regime. It has consistently blocked U.S. actions in the U.N. Security Council, including efforts to invoke chapter VII authorization to enforce existing Security Council resolutions 2118 and 2139. Russia continues to provide the regime materiel assistance, including ammunition, weapons, airplanes, and spare parts that are keeping the regime afloat. From Syria to Ukraine, it is clear that President Putin's approach to foreign policy is rooted in old Cold War regrets. The administration has taken steps to respond to the protracted conflict in Syria. Let me outline a few. First, on chemical weapons: The agreement negotiated last fall has led to the vast majority of the Syrian regime's declared chemical weapons stockpiles being removed from Syria. Taking most of these dangerous weapons off the table was a great step forward. However, I remain concerned about reports that the regime could keep the remaining 8 percent of those chemical weapons as an insurance policy. Equally, if not more, concerning are indications that the Assad regime retains secret stockpiles of chemical weapons that we cannot account for. Further, the regime's use of chlorine gas attacks to terrorize Syrian civilians demonstrates categorically that Assad will never abide by the spirit of that agreement--even an agreement that has led to that 92-percent removal. Here is what he won't fully agree to: to stop using chemical weapons against his own people in clear violation of international law. Second, on humanitarian assistance, the administration has supported increasing efforts to reduce the suffering. The State Department and USAID must be commended for mobilizing a tremendous aid effort. American taxpayers have contributed over $1.7 billion in humanitarian assistance both inside of Syria and in its neighborhood. This important assistance has fed, clothed, vaccinated, and sheltered Syrians displaced by the fighting. However, the humanitarian crisis remains, as David Milliband put it, ``a defining humanitarian emergency of this century.'' So much more remains to be done just on the humanitarian challenge in and of itself. Since the beginning of this conflict I have been calling for a more robust response by the United States. Yesterday I met with Mr. Jarba, the president of the Syrian National Coalition. While we discussed the situation in Syria and while we know this situation is terribly complicated, his bottom line message to me--and I am sure he will be addressing this with other American officials as well--and his message was very clear: Without significant support from the United States of America, the fighting will continue and a political solution will not be reached.'' We must act to change the battle's momentum and to fundamentally shift Mr. Assad's calculus. As long as he believes that there are no real consequences for his actions, he will continue to defy the U.N. Security Council. Consequently, I have sent a letter to President Obama today which asks him to consider some next steps. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my letter to the President dated today be printed in the Record. United States Senate, Washington, DC, May 8, 2014. Hon. Barack Obama, President of the United States, The White House, Washington,

Mr. CASEY. I thank the Chair. Let me outline some of what I set forth in the letter. First, I asked that the President seriously consider allowing the deployment of lethal assistance to the moderate military opposition. A serious effort to help narrow the gulf between the moderate opposition and the better-trained and better-equipped extremist fighters would not only boost morale in the Free Syrian Army but could actually change the momentum of the battle. Yesterday President Jarba expressed his commitment to continuing to fight extremist forces. He made that commitment to me, and I am sure he would reiterate it to others. There is no question that there are risks here, but the greater risk is allowing Syria to fall into the hands of extremists and to allow the regime to murder thousands more Syrians and prevail in this conflict. If the administration judges that it has the confidence in Mr. Jarba's pledges and that we have conducted sufficient vetting of key opposition commanders, it should either consider allowing our partners in the region to supply lethal aid or consider providing such weapons ourselves. I have not and will not advocate for American boots on the ground in this conflict, but giving moderate opposition forces the assistance they need to stem Assad's reign of terror and drive back foreign extremist fighters is in our national interest. Second, my letter urges President Obama to resume the push for a chapter 7 authorization in the United Nations. Getting Russia to agree to U.N. Security Council resolutions 2118 and 2139 was a difficult task, far more difficult than it should have been considering international law is clear about the deployment of chemical weapons and the use of humanitarian assistance as a tool of war. Enforcement of these resolutions is critical. If Assad does not make good on his commitment to turn over 100 percent--not 92 percent--100 percent of his chemical weapons caches, there should be consequences. If he continues to starve and barrel bomb Syrian children, there must be consequences. Pressing for a chapter 7 authorization would help us hold both Mr. Putin and Mr. Assad to their commitments. It would also pave the way for the United Nations to ramp up its cross-border humanitarian assistance, which is desperately needed inside of Syria. When we met yesterday, President Jarba was clear: There will be no momentum behind a political solution until the momentum on the battlefield changes. I have believed that for a long time. The United States has an opportunity not only to help end the suffering in Syria but to send a strong message to those who support the Assad regime, including Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah. I strongly urge the administration to consider the high stakes of allowing this conflict to continue unabated, and I ask that the administration strongly consider supporting a more substantial effort to properly train and equip the moderate Syrian opposition so they can reject extremist forces, defeat the regime, and begin to rebuild Syria. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I wish to mark the centennial of the enactment of the Smith-Lever Act. The Smith-Lever Act established the Cooperative Extension Service, a vital nationwide system of educational partnerships that brings together Federal, State and local governments and land-grant universities. This network is administered by The Pennsylvania State University in all 67 counties of Pennsylvania. Access to the Cooperative Extension Program provides valuable information, resources and educational programs to communities on a broad range of issues. As agriculture is Pennsylvania's No. 1 industry, this program continues to serve as a valuable resource for agricultural producers, small business owners, students, consumers, and communities of all sizes. The Cooperative Extension Program helps to maintain and support the agricultural industry, while utilizing innovative research and technologies to advance the future of the industry. I ask the Senate to join me in honoring the 100th anniversary of the Smith-Lever Act.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this morning to talk about the matter before us, which is the minimum wage. Today the Senate will vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to the Minimum Wage Fairness Act, the legislation we are considering, which would increase the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour over the course of 3 years. We do not know what the result will be today, but we are working to get as much support as possible because getting past this first hurdle, of course, is essential to getting the bill passed, to giving Americans who are working very hard a fair shot at some economic security that they may not have right now. We have a lot of work to do because there are still people out there--especially here in Washington--who are making arguments that do not make a lot of sense and, to me, do not make a lot of sense to the people of Pennsylvania. Where I came from, when someone works a full day and a full week, they should not--most people believe they should have a fair shot at making not just a living but making sure they have enough of a living that they can lift themselves out of poverty. You should not work 40 hours a week and be paid a poverty wage. Unfortunately, that is the case for far too many Americans. Increasing the minimum wage would help workers make ends meet, and it would offer a lift up the ladder to the middle class and boost the economy by boosting new spending. We know that is the case. All the data shows that. All the studies show that. But we still have to make the case to some folks here in Washington. Wages for most workers are not keeping up with the cost of living, the cost of paying a mortgage and raising a family and some of the other middle-class concerns. The pay for minimum-wage workers is not keeping up with inflation. Six years have passed since the last minimum wage increase was enacted. Pay for the middle class is stagnant, while the gap between the haves and the have-nots has widened substantially. The chart on my right tells the story of what could happen if we are able to pass an increase in the minimum wage. It is about giving a fair shot to our families and to our workers by raising the minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage helps a lot of folks across the country more broadly. Of course, it helps working families. Look at these numbers. Workers who would get a raise: 27.8 million workers across the country. There are very few things the Senate can do today or this week that would provide that kind of direct economic jump-start to so many communities and to 27.8 million people. Look at the boost to GDP. I mentioned that earlier--a $22 billion boost to the economy. Again, there are very few things, if any, we could pass in the Senate that would provide that kind of jump-start to the economy when we need it. The number of jobs created across the country: some 85,000. Some think the number is higher than that. I know this would have a job- increase impact into the thousands in Pennsylvania. Look at the number for women. There is mostly an issue about women who are working every day trying to support their families. It also has an impact, obviously, on children. Women who would get a raise: 15.3 million women across the country. I would like to hear someone who is on the other side of the aisle demonstrate to women across this country what they will do in place of that if they are going to say that now is not the time for a raise in the minimum wage. What about those women who are shouldering most of the burden to raise their families and to make their way in a tough economy? Children with a parent who would get a raise: 14 million children have a parent who would get a boost in the minimum wage. Again, I would say: What is your answer or what is your strategy to give a boost but really, more appropriately stated, a measure of security to our children? I am not sure I can name another action this Senate could take to make sure 14 million children have a measure of security that they do not have today even in an economy that--in some parts of the country--is getting a little better. Americans overall lifted out of poverty: 2 million Americans will be lifted out of poverty if we pass an increase in the minimum wage. Again, I would ask anyone on the other side, is there an action, is there a bill, is there a vote, is there a step we can take in the Senate this week or next week that would do the same to help 14 million children, to lift 2 million Americans out of poverty? I do not know of any. I will wait and see what their answer is. I hope they will answer that question because they should. This is a debate. They should answer that question. Tell us what you will do to help 14 million children if you are not going to support lifting or raising the minimum wage. Less spending on food stamps: $4.6 billion per year. We hear attacks all the time--unjustified though they are--from the other side about SNAP. We used to call it the food stamp program. They are always saying: We need to reduce spending in that program. Well, instead of cutting people, as so many in this body seem to want to do every day of the week, voting for budgets that would slash support for people who need help just having a measure of food security, being able to feed their families, instead of doing that, why don't we support raising the minimum wage, lifting them out of poverty, lifting them out of the dependence they have to have on an important program such as SNAP? That is the better way to reduce those numbers. It is not just a question of what is right; it is a question of the best economic strategy for that worker, for his or her family, and for the economy overall. Finally, veterans who would get a raise: 1 million veterans. We hear speeches all the time here in Washington from both sides of the aisle. In most cases--in almost every case--they are heartfelt and they are honest about the support that one Senator or a group of Senators provide to help our veterans. I have no doubt that people are sincere when they say that. But there are some opportunities around here where you can take action. You can cast a vote that has a direct benefit not just for 14 million children but in this case for 1 million veterans. You have to ask yourself, if you cannot cast that vote, what are you going to do? What are you going to do with the power you have to cast your vote, to stand and say: I support an increase in the minimum wage. If you are not going to do that, if you are not going to vote for this or ever vote for this, then what are you going to do to help those same 1 million veterans or those same 14 million children or those 15.3 million women? If you have an answer for that, if you have a different strategy that will get us to these numbers, let's hear it. I would like to hear the answer to that. I have not heard it yet. Maybe I have not been listening. But I will try to listen closely to what the arguments are on the other side of the aisle. So the hashtag #raisethewage is a good way to summarize why this is so fundamental but really so simple. This is about giving people a fair shot. It is not about some program people are asking to be created. It is about basic fairness in giving folks a fair shot in an economy that is still very tough for a lot of families. I think it is critical that we emphasize some of these numbers, but it is also really about the human trauma so many families have been living through. So many of them have lived through the recession and are still climbing out of the hole they are in. They have lost their jobs; they may have run out of unemployment insurance; they may have lost their homes in the course of all of that. There is no question and it is irrefutable that the cascading effect of that trauma hits not only the worker and maybe, if they have a spouse or a partner, the person standing next to them, but it also has a cascading effect on the children as well and the family and then on all of us. We all have a stake in this. The idea of raising the minimum wage is about some other group of people out there who are far away from us makes no sense. If we raise the minimum wage, the economy for everyone gets better. Folks don't have to take my word for it. Over 600 economists--600, not 6 or 10 but 600 economists--including 7 Nobel laureates, have signed a letter stating their support for raising the minimum wage to $10.10 because it would be good for workers and it would not have a negative effect on jobs and would even provide a boost to economic activity. I am not going to read the whole January letter from the 600 economists, but I will read a statement from it and then I will conclude. At a time when persistent high unemployment is putting enormous downward pressure on wages, such a minimum-wage increase would provide a much-needed boost to the earnings of low-wage workers. In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on unemployment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no-- Let me say it again, ``little or no''-- negative effect on the unemployment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front. That is a long statement by 600 economists. It is very measured. It is not inflating numbers and saying this is going to cure all of our economic challenges or all of our economic woes, but it is a clear and unequivocal endorsement of raising the minimum wage. I would add to that, with all due respect to those smart economists, the data on this chart. Let me make one more point and then I will conclude. I don't have it in front of me, but one of the organizations that has endorsed the increase in the minimum wage is the American Academy of Pediatrics. Why? Because they know a lot about taking care of kids. They know a lot about providing the best health care for kids. They know a lot about the traumas and the difficulties that a lot of children face, especially if they are poor or if they are in a family getting low wages. That child is impacted. There is no doubt about that. All the science tells us that. All the literature tells us that. But if the American Academy of Pediatrics is saying we should raise the minimum wage because it is good for kids and these 600 economists are saying it is good for the economy and so much other information is saying it will help our veterans, 1 million veterans and 14 million kids, what is the argument on the other side against it? I have heard some of the arguments, but I have not heard an argument yet that says they have a strategy on the other side of this debate that will help 15.3 million women, that will directly help 14 million children and that will help 1 million veterans and boost our economy on top of it. I would be for this even if there wasn't a boost to the economy because we could help people individually, but that is an added reason to be supportive of this bill. This is long overdue. We shouldn't be having this debate every 5, 6 or 8 years. We should raise the minimum wage appropriately, to a reasonable number that makes sense, and then index it so we can take this issue off the table, so it would increase appropriately, as it should, over time. If we had done that in the 1960s or 1970s, the minimum wage would be not just higher than it is today, $7.25, it would be more than $10.50 an hour, something higher than that. If you are unalterably opposed to raising the minimum wage, I would hope you would have a strategy to make sure that 14 million kids are benefited by your action, by your bill--not over 20 years but by some other legislative vehicle--and you should have a strategy to make sure 1 million veterans have some measure of economic security they don't have, and you should be able to answer what the American Academy of Pediatrics said is good for children. If you can answer those kinds of questions, then I would love to take a look at your bill, but if you can't, you have some explaining to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes and that following my remarks Senator Franken be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes and Senator Markey be permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I wish to say a word of commendation for the remarks the Senator from Colorado just made about a very important issue, and that photograph he took is, indeed, an inspiration to all Americans. Each of us can be inspired by that photograph, what it represents, by the sacrifice that undergirds that photograph, and also for his reminding us about those sacrifices and those commitments, so we want to thank him.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, this legislation on equal pay is about justice, in a word. We could almost say that equal pay equals justice. There is probably no simpler way to say it. It is really, when you consider what this means, a very simple concept: If a woman does the same job, the same work, does all of that in the same way a man does and is hired by a company, she should be paid the same wage. It seems so simple, so elementary, but unfortunately we have had more than one generation now where that has not been the case. Depending on what study or what year we are talking about, women make, on average, 76 cents for every dollar a man makes, or 77 cents. It has always been in that band of similar numbers. I think for a lot of families it is disturbing. How do I tell, in my case, my four daughters to just do well in school and work hard, as they have, and get good grades, and once you are on a career path, you will be fairly compensated for your work because of all that hard work you did and the good work you do for an employer. What can I say if they come to me--I hope this never happens--10 or 20 years from now and say: You know, what you told me isn't true. I did well in school, I worked hard, I got hired and worked hard in the job I have had, and I am getting paid 76 cents for the $1 a man makes doing the same work in the same place at the same time. It makes no sense. So really, in essence, it is about whether we are going to be true to our words and true to the values of this country, and it is about giving people a fair shot on something as fundamental as the wages they are paid for their labor--to use an expression from the Bible, laboring in the vineyards; laboring at a job and being paid in a fair manner. There was a report not too long ago--not this year but a few years ago--that looked at a State-by-State weekly pay comparison. In that report, Pennsylvania women made, on average, $694 a week, while men in Pennsylvania were paid $849 a week--an 18.3-percent differential. But that is not the end of the story. It gets worse. For people 50 years and older, just looking at that age category, for women workers 50 years and older in Pennsylvania at that time, just a few years ago, the differential was $732 and $984 for men--almost $250 a week above in that age category--and for all women at that time, about $150 of difference each and every week. Imagine what that does to someone's sense of achievement or sense of dignity when they know they are doing the same work every day and they are being underpaid over and over every week, every month, every year, and in some cases decade after decade. So when we say this is a matter of justice, in some ways that might be an understatement. We have a chance to remedy that, and it is very simple. Are we going to take steps to remedy that or are we going to reject the steps it will take to bring a measure of justice, a fair shot for women? They are not asking for anything that a man wouldn't ask for or demand. They are just asking for basic fairness--to be treated the same for the same work. I won't go into all the elements of the legislation, but some of them involve what happens in the event of a conflict--if a woman is discriminated against based upon her pay and she brings an action in a court, what will be the rules that govern that case. I think we should do everything possible to make sure that if an employer has a defense, they have to earn that defense, especially in this kind of litigation. One part of the legislation prohibits retaliation for employee complaints. In other words, if a woman is inquiring about or discussing or disclosing the wages of herself or some other employee, she is not retaliated against. It is hard to believe we have to legislate and make that the subject of debate. One would think that if a woman is working in a company for years and she is aggrieved and has a claim to make and is asked what the foundation of her claim is, her questions, her inquiries, her comparisons between and among different sets of data, what she makes, what a man who does the same work has been paid--that those basic questions should never, ever be the subject of retaliation by an employer, but too often they are. So we have to legislate. We have to specifically prohibit that kind of conduct by an employer, as maddening and as frustrating as that is. One would think that employers would want to make things right; that they would want to make sure that if a man is paid a buck for his work, a woman doing the same work is paid the same amount. She shouldn't have to ask. She shouldn't have to be worried about any kind of reprisal or retaliation or punishment. But the state of the law today is such that retaliation goes without sanction in the United States of America. It is very insulting to women and insulting to families. So there is lots we can do, but the most important thing we can do is to get a favorable vote on the Paycheck Fairness Act before us. I hope we get a bipartisan vote. This shouldn't be the subject of support of just one party. This should be bipartisan. The people who are asking for this help, who have been asking for it for decades, aren't members of just one party. They happen to represent one-half or more of the American people, when women have asked for that. If any of my colleagues think for whatever reason that this is not the right thing to do for today, they should do it for future generations. Do it for your own daughters, your own granddaughters, maybe your great-granddaughters. But to forgo the opportunity to do something about this at long last--President Kennedy signed the original legislation. A lot of people in the United States weren't even born then. Yet here we are still debating, still striving to get a basic measure of justice in place. So I do believe equal pay equals justice. Afghanistan Elections Mr. President, I will turn to another subject this evening. I know we have to wrap up, and I am the last speaker of the evening, but this is a topic that doesn't get enough attention even though it was the subject of a lot of coverage and attention in the last couple of weeks and especially the last couple of days; that is, the elections in Afghanistan. Many people know that some of the reporting indicated that the results were good in terms of turnout. There are a lot of questions to review, but we don't know the results of the elections. It is, however, remarkable how the Afghan people turned out to choose their second democratically elected President. About 60 percent of the 12 million eligible voters defied Taliban threats to cast their votes. I am hopeful these elections are a step toward a smoother transfer of power later this year. By the way, that voter turnout number in terms of eligible voters is a little higher than we had in the United States of America in 2012. Secretary Kerry said last week that this election has been ``Afghan owned from the start.'' The Afghan government security forces and civil society worked together to make these elections happen despite concerted efforts by the Taliban to sow fear and destroy democratic progress. The service of our men and women in uniform set the stage for this progress. U.S. training and mentoring helped the Afghan National Security Forces get to the point where it could secure polling centers and allow these elections to happen. We know in 2009 the international security forces bore the brunt of the election's security efforts, including, of course, American fighting men and women--our soldiers, at that time. The State Department, USAID, and NGOs also put a tremendous amount of work in supporting Afghan institutions in this process of carrying out an election. The role Afghan women played in these elections is particularly remarkable. In the National Defense Authorization Act's amendment last year, I urged the administration to focus especially on ensuring there were enough female poll workers and security personnel to ensure all Afghan women who wanted to vote could do so safely and without fear of intimidation. Female voters turned out in numbers never seen before in Afghanistan, which speaks to their tremendous bravery and unwavering commitment to fighting for their rights as Afghan citizens. This is an incredible number. About one third of the 7 million voters, according to the reports, were women. Many women were voting for the first time. I don't have an enlargement, but this is a photograph which appeared a day after the election which depicts a line of 50 or more women standing in the rain under a plastic tarp waiting to vote. The American service men and women and, of course, taxpayers have made a tremendous investment in Afghanistan to make it the nascent democracy it is today. From harsh Taliban rule, Afghanistan is emerging as a fledgling democracy, with tremendous gains in education and health care. Just imagine. Girls who were literally at zero in their representation in schools a little more than a decade ago now constitute 42 percent of Afghan children enrolled in school. That didn't happen because of just some policy in effect. There was a lot of bravery and valor demonstrated by families and by young girls going to school under terrible threats--threats of death and intimidation. We all know about the terrible stories of young girls walking or riding to school and having acid thrown in their faces. Despite specific attacks on girls or young women, they keep going to school. It also happened because of the great sacrifice of our fighting men and women--those killed in action or wounded in action, tens of thousands of Americans. In Pennsylvania to date we have lost 91 soldiers killed in action and almost 740 wounded in action. So all of these results--whether it is about democracy or whether it is about girls in school, women being able to vote, or a range of other metrics, health care and otherwise--came with tremendous sacrifice, the kind of sacrifice most of us don't really have a sense of. At least I don't. The results will be returned later this month on the election in Afghanistan. If a runoff is necessary, I hope all parties will work together to ensure the process is credible, transparent, and free from violence. Once President Karzai's successor is in place, the Afghan government and the Afghan people should move quickly to sign the bilateral security agreement and affirm the commitments the Afghan government has made to the international community and, by doing so, recognize the tremendous sacrifice of our fighting men and women and those of the coalition forces as well. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article about the election from the New York Times dated April 5, 2014.

Mr. CASEY. I wish to highlight two quotes. The first is from a 21- year-old woman who is voting for the first time in this election: She was voting, for the first time, for her children and for women's rights, she said, speaking in a whisper. ``I believe in the right of women to take part just as men do, to get themselves educated and to work.'' A remarkable inspiration from a 21-year-old woman voting for the first time in Afghanistan. The second quotation is from a 60-year-old farmer who was asked by a reporter what it was like to vote under the threats that were either proximate--meaning something happening in almost real time or in the recent past--or just the overall threat posed by the Taliban and other extremists. This farmer said: I left everything behind, my fears and my work, and came to use my vote. I want a change and a good government . . . He goes on from there to describe what he hopes will happen. But just imagine that. He said: I left everything behind, my fears and my work, and came to use my vote. When I read that, I thought about something Thomas Jefferson said in a letter to John Adams when he was an older man. He was describing the fear of old age--not the kind of fear of reprisal if you were voting but the fear of growing old. He talked about how he dealt with the fear of growing old in nautical terms. He said: ``I steer my bark with hope in the head, leaving fear astern.'' That is all I thought about when I heard what the 60-year-old farmer said; that even though he had fears-- the fear of death, the fear of reprisal against him, his family or people in his neighborhood--he was willing to say his right to vote was so important he was willing to leave those fears and his work behind so he could vote. What a tremendous inspiration on a subject--the conflict in Afghanistan and all which comes from it that often is not the subject of positive commentary or inspiration. For once and all too infrequently, this is one of those occasions where we can be positive about a result. We have more work to do to make sure the bilateral security agreement is signed, but we should draw some measure of inspiration from what happened in Afghanistan and the progress which has been made there. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I wish to recognize Project HOME on the occasion of their 25th anniversary. Founded in Philadelphia, PA, Project HOME is a national leader in combating homelessness and providing life-saving services to countless individuals. Project HOME has a mission that not only includes providing shelter to those in need, but also helping to break the cycle of chronic homelessness by examining the root causes. Project HOME was co-founded in 1989 by Sister Mary Scullion and Joan Dawson McConnon. Their first shelter, the Mother Katherine Drexel Residence for chronically homeless men, was established shortly thereafter. Then, in the summer of 1990, Project HOME opened its first transitional house, the Diamond Street Residence, which provided a safe environment for up to 12 men. Over the last 25 years Project HOME has grown dramatically, providing the care and support that is necessary to combat Philadelphia's battle with homelessness. The strong leadership of Sister Mary Scullion and Joan Dawson McConnon has allowed Project HOME to expand from a single winter shelter into an organization with 535 units of affordable housing. The vision of Project HOME is simple: none of us are home until all of us are home. Sister Mary and Joan, along with their dedicated staff, strive to make this vision a reality every day. Project HOME has empowered countless individuals in Philadelphia to realize their full potential. Their commitment to promoting compassion and a community spirit has benefited the City of Philadelphia and served as a model within the Commonwealth and across the country. It is a privilege and an honor to recognize Project HOME for its tremendous work as they celebrate 25 years of activism and advocacy.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 1, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Caterpillar's Offshore Tax Strategy.''

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 1, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.