Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I move to the second part of my remarks, which is to talk about two of our judicial nominees who will be coming before the Senate today. Both of these nominees will be voted on today to be members of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. I wish to give Senators the benefit of a little biographical background on both of them. I will begin with Nitza Quinones Alejandro. Judge Quinones is recognized by her colleagues as being very well prepared as a judge and a conscientious judicial official who exhibits an outstanding judicial temperament and fairness. Since 1991, Nitza Quinones Alejandro has served as a trial judge for the First Judicial District of the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia, working on criminal and civil trials with all of the diversity, difficulty, and challenge that comes with that. She runs a good courtroom, treats lawyers and litigants fairly, and renders thoughtful decisions. She was first nominated for judicial appointment back in May of 1990 by Gov. Robert P. Casey, my father, when he was serving in office in Pennsylvania. At the time--not quite then a judge--Judge Quinones became the first Latina State court judge in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania back in the early 1990s. Prior to her judicial appointment, Judge Quinones served as an arbitrator for the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas from 1980 to 1991. She also worked as a staff attorney with the Department of Veterans Affairs and as an attorney-advisor for the Office of Hearings and Appeals at the Department of Health and Human Services. She was also a staff attorney with Community Legal Services in Philadelphia. Judge Quinones is a founding member and has been active within the Hispanic Bar Association of Pennsylvania for the past 20 years. She has actively recruited students from local law schools and hired numerous Hispanic attorneys as full-time law clerks and serves as a mentor to countless students and professionals. A native of Puerto Rico, she graduated from the University of Puerto Rico School of Business Administration cum laude in 1972 and acquired her juris doctor degree from the University of Puerto Rico's School of Law in 1975. Her commitment to public service and substantial judicial experience will make her an outstanding Federal judge. It is also, I should note, a remarkable American story that Judge Quinones brings to us today. We look forward to the vote today on her confirmation. We appreciate the work that has been done to bring her nomination to the floor. I have enjoyed working with Senator Toomey on both Judge Quinones' nomination as well as the second nomination. Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl, the second nominee, as well will bring an extraordinary record of knowledge, experience, and public service to the Federal bench. He is well regarded by lawyers and litigants who appear before him, as well as the people of Reading in Berks County, PA. Since 2007 he has served as the president judge for the Berks County Court of Common Pleas, where he has served as a judge since 1998. Prior to joining the bench, Judge Schmehl was a partner at Rhoda Stoudt & Bradley from 1988 to 1997, where he also worked as an associate since 1986. He has served as the county solicitor at the Berks County Services Center from 1989 to 1997, and he owned his own law firm from 1981 to 1986. He also served as an assistant district attorney in Berks County, as a prosecutor, and as an assistant public defender for the Berks County Public Defender's Office--a rare combination, both a public defender and a prosecutor. He received his bachelor of arts degree from Dickinson College in 1977 and a juris doctor from the University of Toledo School of Law in 1980. We look forward to Judge Schmehl's confirmation as well. Both of these are individuals about whom we can be very proud, vote for, and support with enthusiasm. It always helps when you have two judges who are the result of the working together of a Democratic Senator and a Republican Senator--in this case, Senator Toomey and myself--working together to bring their nominations to this point and to get them confirmed on the floor of the Senate. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to address two issues this morning, but starting with the issue that is confronting us here on the Senate floor. It is a great challenge, but it is also a great opportunity; that is, immigration. The opportunity we have to come together in the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, is to fix a broken system and to help our economy. Along the way, as we are working through the immigration bill over the next days and weeks, I think we can not only get this issue on the right track substantively but we can also send a very strong message to the American people that on major consequential issues for the American people we can come together, work together, and get a good result for them. I think that in and of itself is worthy of a lot of attention. Syria But even as we are working on immigration, of course we have to concern ourselves with a whole range of other issues. One I will speak to briefly this morning is the issue of our policies as they relate to Syria. We are confronted this morning with a headline in the Washington Post. I will hold it up. It reads: ``Iran On Ascent As Syria Churns.'' The first page of the Post. I will read the first paragraph of this story: As fighters with Lebanon's Hezbollah movement wage the battles that are helping Syria's regime survive, their chief sponsor, Iran, is emerging as the biggest victor in the wider regional struggle for influence that the Syrian conflict has become. There is one of the reasons why I and others, for not just weeks but months now, have been urging the administration and the Congress to come together on a more focused and more effective strategy as it relates to Syria. We had a good bipartisan effort in the Foreign Relations Committee. We were able to pass out of the committee legislation that dealt with Syria that would provide a whole range of supports and efforts that will lead to a better result in Syria. I know the White House has spent the last couple of weeks and will be spending even more time today to come up with a policy that makes sense. But I do not think we can any longer pretend this issue is not an issue that concerns our national security, because every day the Iranian regime and Hezbollah plot against us. Anything that results in the regime in Iran being strengthened, as the Washington Post points to today in this story, is bad for our national security. We have a lot of work to do. Again, this should be bipartisan. But the administration needs to focus on Syria and come to a conclusion about the way forward that will be in the best interests of our national security and also in the best interests of the people of Syria who are fighting valiantly against the Asad regime. We all agree the Asad regime should not be in power, but we can't just wish that. We will have to take the steps that will lead to that result in a concerted fashion with allies in the region. I ask unanimous consent the story entitled ``Iran on ascent as Syria churns'' from the Washington Post this morning be made part of the Record.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the service of LTG Michael D. Barbero, the director of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization, JIEDDO, who will retire from service on May 17, 2013. Lieutenant General Barbero has honorably served his country for more than three decades. Since graduating from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1976 as an infantry officer, LTG Barbero has commanded troops at every level. He is a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, having served 4 years in Iraq over three separate tours. From 2003- 2004, he served as the assistant division commander of the 4th Infantry Division. He next served in Iraq as the deputy chief of staff, Strategic Operations at Multi-National Force-Iraq during ``the surge'' in 2007 and 2008. Immediately prior to his time as director of JIEDDO, he was deployed in Iraq for a final time from 2009-2011. During this deployment, Lieutenant General Barbero was responsible for the training, equipping, and development of all Iraqi security forces and building the ministerial capabilities of both the Ministries of Interior and Defense, while serving simultaneously as the commander of Multi-National Security and Transition Command-Iraq and the commander of the NATO Training Mission-Iraq. Among his many decorations, Lieutenant General Barbero has been awarded the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, and the Bronze Star Medal. As chairman of the Near Eastern and South Central Asian Affairs Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I have worked closely with LTG Barbero in an effort to stem the flow of IED precursor materials from Pakistan into Afghanistan. These homemade explosive, HME, materials pose the biggest threat to our service men and women and are responsible for far too many casualties. Under General Barbero's leadership, JIEDDO has made significant strides in working with various departments, the interagency, the intelligence community, and the Government of Pakistan, to create a whole-of-government approach to combat these dangers by not only reducing the flow of HME, but also by helping to eliminate the enemy networks that seek to use these materials for the nefarious purposes of harming our troops, attacking civilian populations, and furthering instability. General Barbero has approached his work with a high degree of transparency, integrity, and focus. Few missions are as important as JIEDDO's in working to defeat the IED as a weapon of strategic influence. Lieutenant General Barbero carried out that mission superbly. No one has done more or worked harder to find ways to counter the threat posed by IEDs. I have especially appreciated his efforts to encourage others across government to do all they can in order to maintain a level of preparedness to deal with this asymmetric threat. Under his leadership, JIEDDO further improved its processes and control measures to make for a more effective and efficient organization that will be a model for other leaders to emulate. I have gotten to know LTG General Michael Barbero well during his tenure at JIEDDO. He is an inspiring leader, a fine example for his fellow servicemembers, and a fellow Pennsylvanian. I am proud to share in the celebration of Lieutenant General Barbero, his extraordinary leadership of JIEDDO, and his distinguished military service.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. When unions sprang up to defend the rights of workers, they were treated as illegal conspiracies, ruthlessly smashed by companies that either used violence or called on the police or military to defend their interests. The unions rarely made more than temporary gains. When America began to industrialize in the 1800s, the relationship between workers and their bosses changed dramatically. Craft work by skilled employees was replaced by mass production with hundreds or even thousands of people working for a single, impersonal corporation. Giant powerful entities generally treated their workers like faceless, expendable commodities--inputs into the production process, whose costs had to be kept low in order to maximize profits in the incomes of robber barons. That was certainly true in my home State of Pennsylvania. The corporations amassed enormous wealth, but the employees were mostly left behind, with lives of misery and hardship. In Pittsburgh, for example, the western corner of our State, a remarkable in-depth sociological study by the Russell Sage Foundation of the lives of working families in the early 1900s found widespread grinding poverty and child labor, poor health and education, and astonishing levels of work-related injury and illness. In Allegheny County, where Pittsburgh is located, with a million residents, more than 500 workers died in industrial accidents in a single year, most of them in the steel mills. The same was true in the coal mines. To give you an example, in 1907, 1,516 workers were killed in the coal mines of Pennsylvania. In over about a 98-year period, 31,047 known fatalities happened in the coal mines of Pennsylvania. If the United States today had a proportional number of occupational fatalities as they had in Pittsburgh when 500 workers died, the number would be 150,000 workers today losing their lives on the job. Workers were chewed up and discarded with no workers' compensation system and no hope of suing the corporation for negligence. The law of labor relations was seriously unbalanced. Whereas business owners were able to act collectively, joining together in corporations to be treated as a special kind of person under the law, while escaping individual liability for corporate acts, unions were sometimes treated as criminal conspiracies, their strikes were considered illegal restraints against trade, and courts intervened to issue injunctions to hold unions liable for the acts of their members. When workers tried to form unions to defend themselves or to win a fair share of the profits, they were usually met by fierce resistance by employers, fueling anger and resentment, often leading to violence. One of the most famous and, I should say, infamous tragedies involved Carnegie Steel, which for 10 years had a collective bargaining contract with its skilled employees at the Homestead plant but decided in 1892, during an economic depression, both to cut the employees' wages and to destroy the union. I won't go into the whole story today; we don't have time. Suffice it to say the union was crushed completely because of the actions of that steel company and then steel companies after it. Move forward in history when demand for their products dried up in the Great Depression. Many businesses cut both wages and hours, further depressing workers' incomes and purchasing power. In President Franklin D. Roosevelt's first year in office in 1933, he pushed through Congress the National Industrial Recovery Act. One of its main purposes was to encourage companies to recognize their unions and to bargain with them. FDR and Labor Secretary Frances Perkins were convinced that raising wages and thereby increasing consumer demand was essential to lift the economy and put people back to work. Unfortunately, the entity the act created to encourage collective bargaining, the National Labor Board, as it was called at the time, had no power to compel compliance with the new law. Union membership soared, but the companies continued to resist collective bargaining or recognize the sham company unions they controlled, effectively bargaining with themselves rather than the real representatives of the workers. Instead of an orderly, efficient act, or system, I should say, the act produced chaos. The Supreme Court ruled that the act was beyond the powers of Congress under the commerce clause of the Constitution. What happened then was Senator Robert Wagner of New York started over and drafted the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. It passed quickly and survived a constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court. The new law required companies to recognize unions as the exclusive representative of their employees when they could prove majority representation. It gave the new board the authority to conduct elections and to order companies to bargain in good faith over wages and working conditions. It outlawed sham company-dominated unions, and it protected employees from violations by employers of their right to join a union or to engage in strikes or other protected, concerted activities such as hand billing or picketing. The Board itself was given the power to require employers to hire back fired workers, to pay lost wages with interest, and to agree not to break the law in the future. For a time, the new law worked. As Wilma Liebman, on the National Labor Relations Board for 14 years, said recently: Over the next decades, millions of workers voted for union representation in NLRB-conducted elections. And millions achieved a middle class way of life through collective bargaining and agreements that provided fair wages and benefits in major industries of the economy. At the peak of union power, 35 percent of workers were covered by union contracts. They won higher wages, job security, and other benefits. American family incomes grew by an average of 2.8 percent per year from 1947 to 1973. Let me say that again. There was almost a 3- percent increase in family incomes from 1947 to 1973, with every sector of the economy seeing its income roughly doubled. Due to a number of factors, union membership as a share of private sector employment has declined from that 35 percent to less than 7 percent today. We know that our history tells us not only is the act important for union members and for their families, but it is also very important for the middle class. No one thinks the National Labor Relations Board by itself will be able to restore balance to America's incomes or restore purchasing power to the middle class. The Board itself can help make a difference, especially if Congress repairs decades of damage to the rights of unions and employees to organize, bargain and, if necessary, to, in fact, strike. The Employee Free Choice Act would have been a good start in that campaign of repair and restoration. Tens of millions of Americans today are working at poverty wages. By one estimate, 28 percent of workers are paid at a poverty-level wage or less. People who work hard for a living deserve a path to a decent economic future. Workers today are better off than the average workers surveyed in Pittsburgh 100 years ago, as I cited earlier, but their lives are getting harder every year. They are not sharing in our ever- growing national wealth. I hope we can begin a process of reviving collective bargaining soon, but first we must end the disgrace of leaving the Nation's most important labor relations agency without leadership. It is shameful if we allow this to happen. The recent record of obstruction of nominations in the Senate is, in a word, unacceptable and should be unacceptable to every American. It is time to confirm the President's nominees to the National Labor Relations Board, to give certainty to workers and to businesses as we continue to recover and create jobs. As I leave, I would go back to the few short words I will read from the opening Findings and Policies of the National Labor Relations Act: Experience has proved that protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce from injury, impairment, or interruption, and promotes the free flow of commerce by removing certain recognized sources of industrial strife and unrest. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY. I rise to speak about the National Labor Relations Board. This is a board and a set of issues we are going to be debating and have begun to debate recently. It will be with us for a while, and it is an important debate we are having. As the Senate considers the National Labor Relations Board member nominations, I think it is very instructive, and I would even say essential, to look back at the history of the Board and the National Labor Relations Act, the legislation that created the Board, to recall why this Board and the act are so important to our economy, our workers, and our businesses. The National Labor Relations Act played a key role in making the United States the prosperous Nation we are today. A properly functioning labor board and a revived, modernized National Labor Relations Act could be key players in a more prosperous future. Congress passed the act in 1935 during the depths of the Great Depression. The National Labor Relations Board Act legitimized and gave workers the right to join unions. It encouraged and promoted collective bargaining as a way to set wages and settle disputes over working conditions, and it led to a surge in union membership and representation. It is worth remembering as well why the act was passed in the first place. To quote section 1 of the act: ``The inequality of bargaining power between employees . . . and employers . . . substantially burdens and affects the flow of commerce, and tends to aggravate recurrent business depressions by depressing wage rates and the purchasing power of wage earners.'' I am quoting in pertinent part the most significant words in that part of the act which are the flow of commerce, how important it is to settle disputes so we can have a free-flowing commerce, and that workers have the rights they are entitled to. As I said, it was passed in 1935. The economy was reeling. One-fourth of the workforce was jobless. Millions of Americans were poor, hungry, and homeless. Balancing the bargaining power of employers and employees, Congress hoped to restore the Nation to economic prosperity. Giving workers the right to organize and bargain collectively would allow them to stand up to corporate power and demand higher wages, thereby increasing their incomes and their purchasing power. That, in turn, would increase consumption and demand for goods, increasing production and, in fact, increasing employment. As former NLRB Chairman Wilma Liebman said: ``The law was enacted less as a favor to labor, than to save capitalism from itself.'' We know that before the New Deal, the Federal and State governments, the courts, and the law had all been hostile to the collective rights of workers in their struggles against corporate power. For decades, going back to the late 1800s, the majority of production workers in America's heavy industries had labored in harsh and often dangerous conditions for low wages, with little security. I know this from my own family's history, but I also know it from the history of my own region of northeastern Pennsylvania, the so-called hard coal or anthracite region of Pennsylvania. Stephen Crane, the great novelist, wrote about the coal mines right around the turn of the century. Actually, they are the coal mines of my home county. He talked about all the ways a miner could lose his life in the coal mines. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record that part of Stephen Crane's essay about the coal mines.

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

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I support the nomination of Marilyn Tavenner to be the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS. I strongly support her nomination and was sorry to miss today's vote. I voted for her confirmation in the Finance Committee and would have done so today as well. It has been over 6 years since CMS has had a confirmed Administrator, and the agency will benefit from having someone with Ms. Tavenner's skills and expertise at the helm. Her experience as the Secretary of Health and Human Resources in Virginia and with the Hospital Corporation of America as well as the time she has already served as Acting Administrator and Principal Deputy Administrator of CMS have prepared her well for the challenges and opportunities she will confront in this position. I thank her for her willingness to serve at this important time, and I look forward to working with her in the months and years ahead.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise today to speak about the bill we are considering, but also to speak, in particular, about one aspect of the bill. We know the legislation as the so-called WRDA bill, the Water Resources Development Act, and I want to express strong support for the legislation. This bill is, in fact, bipartisan, which is something we need more of around here. It provides for, among other things, flood protection, safe drinking water, wastewater infrastructure, and protects the flow of commerce along our Nation's rivers and waterways. I am grateful for Chairman Boxer's efforts, Ranking Member Vitter, and all the Members and staff of the Environment and Public Works Committee for their dedication to writing a bill that addresses the challenges facing our country's water systems. I want to speak in particular about inland waterways. Our Nation has--for many years now, many generations--a system of locks and dams that play a vital role in creating and sustaining jobs and supporting economic growth throughout the country. I know in my home State of Pennsylvania, even though I had been a State official for a number of years, I did not have a full appreciation of what this meant until about July of--I guess it was the first week of July 2007, when I was able to tour and actually see these major barges up close out in southwestern Pennsylvania and to be able to see the movement of coal or other commodities or energy resources across our waterways and what that meant to the economy of southwestern Pennsylvania but, indeed, the economy of our Commonwealth and our country. So when we hear the phrase ``locks and dams'' in Pennsylvania, especially in southwestern Pennsylvania, we do not think of some far off concept; we think of commerce and the movement of commerce and the jobs and the economic growth that comes from that. Unfortunately, this system, this inland waterways system, is facing major challenges--challenges that threaten in ways that some of us could not imagine even a few years ago. The inland waterways system offers the most cost-competitive way to transport our commodities. It moves some 20 percent of the coal that is used to power our Nation's electricity, much of it from Pennsylvania; also 22 percent of our petroleum products; and more than 60 percent of export grain, which is moved because of this system. The shippers who produce or manufacture these commodities are in danger of losing their competitive edge unless we focus on proper funding for the lock-and-dam infrastructure. Unfortunately, the locks and dams of our Nation have far outlived their design life. There has not been sufficient investment to make headway in replacing these locks and dams. But I am hopeful provisions I and others have worked on in the Water Resources Development Act, which we are considering now, will address the challenges facing this system. Provisions from my bill--which, by the way, goes by the acronym RIVER; the RIVER Act--that are included in the bill we are considering will institute a number of project management reforms that will make sure future lock-and-dam projects are built in the most cost-effective way possible. We cannot ask for a greater commitment to the system or a greater investment without making sure we are also providing reforms. These reforms include risk-based cost estimates and an external peer review process for Army Corps projects across the Nation. This will help ensure that locks and dams in the projects that are undertaken are constructed in the way that is most efficient. We also want to make sure we have cost estimates that are realistic and, of course, avoid cost overruns. One of the provisions of the bill will also adjust the current cost- sharing system by increasing the threshold for the industry to contribute to major rehabilitation projects to $20 million. This will allow for more funding for lock-and-dam projects, which is badly needed right now. These provisions in the overall water resources bill are common sense. They also happen to be fiscally responsible proposals that will significantly improve our Nation's inland waterways system and help to ensure our Nation's waterways can continue to be an effective method to ship commodities. Well, how do we pay for that? Well, a rather interesting development for Washington, which I am about to describe for you: I am grateful so many of the provisions in my bill have been included, but we also need to have an important conversation about how to finance this system and to keep the inland trust fund sustainable in the long term. I filed an amendment, amendment No. 854, that will raise the barge user fee from 20 cents per gallon to 29 cents per gallon. This fee has not been raised since 1986 and, as a result, is not keeping up with inflation and project costs. We have great bipartisan support for this amendment. Senator Alexander is leading this effort with me, and the amendment is cosponsored by the following Senators: Mr. Blunt, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Stabenow, Ms. Klobuchar, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Franken, and Mr. Harkin--indicating the wide reach of the inland waterways system and its impact on so many industries in so many States across the country. The current rate--the barge user fee of 20 cents per gallon--right now is not raising sufficient funding to keep up with operations and maintenance needs along the reach of the system. If we do not make this investment now, it could have dire consequences to multibillion-dollar industries that rely on the use of locks and dams to move their goods. Just consider coal being one of those examples. All 300 users of the inland waterways system support this increase. Let me say that again because this does not happen very much in Washington: All 300 users of the inland waterways system support this barge user fee increase from 20 cents per gallon to 29 cents per gallon. Here we have an example of an industry that is forward looking in asking Congress to allow them to pay more in order to make critical investments in their own infrastructure. In addition to the support of industry, the user fee increase is backed by a diverse array of organizations across the country, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Farmers Union, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Farm Bureau, the AFL-CIO, and over 250 national and local organizations, including barge operators, agriculture, energy and civics and conservation groups. In southwestern Pennsylvania alone over 200,000 jobs rely on the proper functioning of locks and dams on the lower Monongahela River. For those who do not know, it is a river on the western end of our State that flows into the city of Pittsburgh--one of the three rivers we describe as part of our landscape in Pittsburgh. If one of these locks were to fail, it would endanger all 200,000 jobs and have a negative impact of over $1 billion just in that region, not to mention the adverse impact beyond the region. Raising the user fee now will help prevent a catastrophe in the near future. I understand there are objections to addressing important concerns about including a funding fix for locks and dams in this bill due to the so-called blue-slip concerns that involve the House of Representatives. I will work to look for other vehicles so we do not continue to kick this can down the road, and I will talk to Members of the House to include this fix in their version. If we cannot raise revenue on an industry that is asking to pay more so they can invest in their infrastructure, I am afraid the future of our waterways system is in great jeopardy. Many of my colleagues in the Senate on both sides of the aisle recognize the importance of providing a way to pay for investments we need in our locks-and-dams system, and I urge the House to follow suit. I have no doubt they want to do the same. We cannot squander critical foundations that have made America what it is. Reinvesting in our Nation's waterways will allow us to seize economic opportunities to remain competitive in the world and protect and create jobs for generations to come. I will note one citation of history, from a major volume in Pennsylvania history. This goes back to the 1800s when we developed a canal system to move commodities and commerce across our waterways. I will read one sentence from page 180 of a book entitled ``Pennsylvania: A History of the Commonwealth.'' Here is what they said all those years ago in the 1800s, talking about coal: Through those routes, anthracite coal left Pennsylvania for England, Russia, Central Europe and Asia. But the reason that coal was able to get to those places is because we had a system in place to move it. What we do not want to have today in our time is a system that breaks down because we are not willing to make the investment. As I said before, this investment is supported by all of those organizations but especially the 300 users who are willing to invest more so that tomorrow will be bright and we can move commerce across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and across our country. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I call up amendment No. 442.

Mr. CASEY. This amendment creates a neutral reserve fund that supports the Edward Byrne memorial justice assistance grants. It helps every one of our States. It has been cut by one-third over the last 2 years. We provide support for local and State law enforcement. The money is used to support innovative, evidence-based approaches to public safety--by way of example, special courts that have new technological innovations to help reduce and fight crime in our communities. In part, it is supported by--and this is only a partial list--the National Sheriffs' Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the National Narcotics Officers' Association. I am grateful for the work that was done by so many people on this amendment--especially Senator Grassley--and urge for its adoption.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I wish to acknowledge the remarkable lifetime commitment of a Pennsylvania constituent to our Nation's security and veteran community. Maj. Nathan Kline, United States Air Force, Ret., has a total of 42 years of active and ready reserve service. His military career began at the age of 18 when he enlisted in the U.S. Army Air Forces in November 1942. During the war, he served as a B-26 Marauder bombardier and navigator who saw action during the D-day Invasion and the Battle of the Bulge. Serving on 65 missions, his aircraft was shot down twice. His actions during the war earned him a Distinguished Flying Cross, 10 Air Medals, and 4 Battle Stars for the European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal. Years later, the French Ambassador would welcome Major Kline into the Legion of Honour as recognition to his endeavors that contributed to the liberation of the people of France. After experiencing war firsthand, no one would have blamed Major Kline if he had withdrawn from service to live a quiet life in peace. Instead, he remained active in the military and continues to work hard to promote a society that respects its veterans and the sacrifices that they have made. Even in his advanced age, he continues to serve as an advocate on behalf of veterans and their families. As a founding member of the Lehigh Valley Military Affairs Council, LVMAC, he has raised money and created scholarships to help the families of those deployed, organized the assembly and shipment of care packages to deployed servicemembers, and assisted veterans in finding meaningful employment. Major Kline helps veterans of all generations. He fights for the well-being of today's veterans and recognizes the challenges they face, including PTSD and TBI. Our veterans have paid a high price for our American ideals and freedom. Major Kline has never forgotten what he fought for when he enlisted in the service over 70 years ago. The reason why he fought for his country above the skies of Normandy is the same reason why the young servicemember today fights for his Nation in the hills and mountains of Afghanistan. I cannot express this sentiment any better than Major Kline when he said, ``the Greatest Generation will always be embodied in the hearts, minds, and souls of whoever our fighting troops are and wherever they might be.'' I share the story of Major Kline not just because of his heroic actions during the Second World War, but also because of his continued commitment to service. The commitment that a member of our military makes is usually not limited to service during war, but is often for life. Major Kline is a shining example of these principles. Sequestration and budgetary constraints threaten our defense budget and our support for veterans. We as a nation must ensure that we do not drastically affect the pay, medical care, and family programs of our active, reserve, and retired veterans. These men and women have served us before, and if Major Kline is any indication, they will continue to serve our communities for generations to come. For this reason and many others, we owe it to our Nation to ensure that our veterans are always supported and never forgotten.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I rise to honor and remember the full life of Marlene ``Linny'' Fowler for her exceptional service to her community, commonwealth and country. Marlene was born in New York City, the oldest child of Harold and Miriam Oberkotter. Though she was raised in Harrington Park, NJ, Marlene spent her adult life living in Pennsylvania. Marlene, known affectionately as Linny, was a renowned philanthropist, artist and a pillar of her adopted community. Today I wish to honor her as such. As a philanthropist, her influence can been seen across Northeast Pennsylvania, particularly in Bethlehem, the city she had called home since 1965. Upon the passing of her father Harold, a late UPS chief executive, Marlene became one of the wealthiest individuals in the Lehigh Valley. Choosing to eschew large homes or fancy cars, Marlene instead gave generously to support the arts, education and children. She helped to establish a childcare center and Hispanic Youth Center at Northampton County Community College as well as the college's Southside campus, which proudly bears her family name. Her generosity also helped send hundreds of students to colleges and universities that they would otherwise have been unable to afford to attend. Even with her health failing, Marlene worked hard to maintain her involvement with the community up until her passing. Although she kept the total of her generosity a secret, by her own admission she gave away tens of millions of dollars over the course of her life. As an artist, Marlene was trained in the art of stained glass, which she taught throughout her life. She also maintained a studio at the Banana Factory in Bethlehem, an institution she helped fund. As a pillar of her community, Marlene made sure her philanthropic efforts always had a human touch. She met with needy families and non-profit directors in the living room of her own home, investing herself as much as her money. Even as recent economic difficulties forced her to scale back some of her giving, she still continued to keep track of all the youth she helped send to school. As Marlene's family and friends mourn her loss, I pray that they will be comforted by the knowledge that this great Nation will never forget the generosity of Marlene ``Linny'' Fowler. May she rest in peace.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet February 25, 2013.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 25, 2013.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 25, 2013, from 5 to 7 p.m. in The President's Room off the Senate floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, as I have every year since I came to the Senate, I rise to commemorate Black History Month. This year, we are privileged to recognize Bill Strickland, a man whose approach is unique and whose accomplishments are of great consequence to African- Americans, and in fact, to all Americans. From the age of 19, Bill Strickland has worked tirelessly to improve the lives of those living in poverty, to give them a setting they can thrive in and a future they can take pride in. Bill grew up in the Manchester neighborhood of Pittsburgh, on the city's north side. Prior to the decline of industry in the city in the mid-1960s, Manchester was a solid, working class community. But by the time Bill was in high school, the area around him had slid into urban decay and instability. Though surrounded by poverty, Bill's mother was determined to provide a safe environment for her family. And though she didn't have a high school diploma herself, Bill's mother held firm to the belief that a good education was the ticket to a better life. At Oliver High School, when he began his senior year Bill had neither plans for after graduation or a clear picture of what his future might look like. Then one day while walking down the hallway at school, Bill was attracted by the smell of fresh coffee. The coffee, along with the sounds of jazz, led Bill to the art room in Oliver High where he watched a pot being formed from a mound of clay on a turntable. Seated at the potter's wheel was Frank Ross, Oliver High's art teacher who would become Bill's close friend and mentor. Over the next year, in the calm atmosphere of Frank's well-lit art studio, Bill would develop a talent for ceramics. As importantly, it provided a safe and stable sanctuary from the chaos of the streets. At the potter's wheel Bill found his passion, and although he didn't know it yet, he was also forming the beginning of a vision that would become Manchester Bidwell Corporation. In 1967, Bill graduated from Oliver High School and, at the instance of Frank Ross, applied to the University of Pittsburgh where he was accepted, but only as a probationary student. Although he had begun his studies full-time, Bill never lost the connection with his neighborhood. In the summer of 1968, as Manchester grappled with the racial tensions that swept many inner cities, Bill decided to open an arts center in his neighborhood. He had seen the power a bright, orderly, safe place like Frank Ross' studio and the artistic work done there had had on his own life. He wanted to give the young people of Manchester a place where they too could escape the effects of economic and social devastation and experience something beautiful. A conversation with a young minister working in the area led Bill to his first $25,000 in funding and the Manchester Craftsmen's Guild was born as an after-school art program in a donated row house on Buena Vista Street. It was not an overnight success, but Bill never gave up. When young people in the neighborhood weren't immediately taken with ceramics, Bill redoubled his efforts, hitting the streets to reach out to as many people as possible and bring them to his center. People noticed Bill's efforts and the popularity of the Guild grew. As more people came to the center, the center needed more clay, more wheels, and Bill needed to secure more funding. Along the way, an interesting phenomenon occurred. Teachers began noticing that their students who regularly went to the Guild were doing better academically and behaving better in school. Without intending to, Bill had stumbled across a simple, yet empowering, philosophy-- environment shapes people's lives. By providing a safe space for the Manchester youth, and by introducing them to the beauty of the arts, Bill was simultaneously inspiring a large-scale change in his community. Despite starting as a probationary student, Bill graduated from Pitt cum laude with a BA in History in 1970. Bill continued to work with the Manchester Craftmen's Guild and a few years after graduation, he became director of the Bidwell Training Center, a school whose mission was to provide education in the building trades disadvantaged and dislocated workers. When Bill assumed his role as head of Bidwell, what he discovered was a dilapidated warehouse in a seedy parking lot and a $300,000 back tax bill from the IRS. But Bill saw its potential and didn't give up. Bill began to transform Bidwell into a forward-thinking school that offered its students a real chance to dramatically improve their lives. He realized that the changing job market required less focus on construction trades and redirected Bidwell's focus to the hightech and medical industries. He also forged important partnerships with corporations like IBM, Heinz) and Bayer to design curriculums that would train the workers that employers needed. While he worked to improve the staff and the quality of the education, the nature of Bidwell's funding meant that Bill could not address what he saw as one of the institutions central flaws: The building. With funding for social projects harder to come by in the 1980s, Bill was forced to lay- off nearly one-third of his staff just to make payroll. But despite the set-back, in his own eyes, Bill's vision was clearer than ever. Bill realized that what he needed to make Bidwell succeed was a center of which students, faculty, and neighbors could be proud. To achieve his dream, Bill contacted legendary Pittsburgh architect Tasso Kastelas, a student of Frank Lloyd Wright, to design a world class center in one of the worst neighborhoods in Pittsburgh. For $10,000, Bill commissioned the architect to build a model of what would later become the home of the Manchester Bidwell Corporation, as the combined programs of the Manchester Craftsmen's Guild and the Bidwell Training Center would come to be known. Bill had a vision for his building and the conviction that the future of his cause lay in its construction. Just as he had done before, Bill took it upon himself to turn his dream into a reality and spearheaded a $6.5 million capital campaign. Model in hand, he implored the Pittsburgh corporate community to help fund his dream. When the city's corporate donors, who had supported him previously, told him that Manchester didn't need such a spectacular center, he told them in no uncertain terms that it did. When he was told he needed matching funds to obtain his corporate pledges, he turned to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for additional support. In 1986 the new 62,000 square foot arts and career training center opened. Originally the center consisted of studios as well as classrooms, workshops, gallery spaces, and a 350-seat auditorium. Over the years the building has expanded as Bill's vision expanded. In 1987 the jazz hall, which has seen performances from the likes of Dizzy Gillespie and Nancy Wilson, was added and in 2003 the 40,000 square foot state-of-the-art greenhouse opened. The center currently provides training in fields as varied as gourmet food preparation, chemical, office, and medical technologies, and education arts programming in ceramics, design arts, digital arts, and photography. Bill's center and his students success stories are a testament to the power of social entrepreneurship. What began as a mission to provide an escape from the ghetto has produced unparalleled results in educational empowerment and community growth. Manchester Craftsmen's Guild ``Youth in Arts'' is a program that strives to educate and inspire urban young people through the arts. Ninety-three of the high school students who participate in the Manchester Craftsmen's Guild ``Youth in Arts'' program graduate from high school, a noticeable improvement over the national graduation rate of 75.5 percent. The Bidwell Training Center has changed lives by providing market-driven career training to disadvantaged adults in transition. Its training programs continue to place skilled technicians in middle-class jobs at companies such as Bayer, Mylan Labs, and Heinz. MCG Jazz, Manchester-Bidwell's record label, has been nominated for seven Grammy awards and has brought four home to Pittsburgh. The orchids grown in the facility's greenhouse have won Best in Show at a Western Pennsylvania orchid fair and are even available for purchase at Whole Foods. And while they are learning medical coding or how to center clay, each student is fed a gourmet lunch prepared by culinary students in the center's top-of-the-line kitchen. Realizing the opportunity to strengthen other communities and effect change on an even larger scale by using the Manchester Bidwell model of community and educational development as a template, Bill helped found the National Center for Arts and Technology to replicate the Manchester Bidwell education model across the nation. NCAT collaborates with local nonprofits and businesses to assess their community's needs and then works together with the community to design a fitting center for arts and technology. Bill's Pittsburgh model has been replicated in San Francisco, Cincinnati, Cleveland, New Haven, Connecticut and Grand Rapids, MI. He gained some powerful backers including Jeff Skoll, founder of eBay and the Skoll Foundation. The Skoll Foundation was one of Bill's earlier investors; it recognized the potential of his programs to drive large scale positive social change by using entrepreneurial discipline and methods. With the Skoll Foundation's help, Bill clarified his sales pitch--that he could help solve problems faced in communities, had a strategic business plan showing the benefits of working together, and offering people meaning and hope through transforming experiences. Bill has said that ``environment determines behavior'' and he has created a remarkable environment where men and women living in poverty are treated with dignity and respect. Knowing firsthand that poverty creates self-defeating assumptions and restrictive labels but does not define a person's potential, Bill has dedicated his life to changing the lives of others by offering them hope, meaning, and belief in the power of their own creative possibilities. Bill's methods might be unconventional, but his results are success stories of epic proportions. And so in the Senate today we express our gratitude to Bill for never giving up on the poor kids or his vision. His passion and his belief in the abilities of each and every individual that walks through his doors has touched lives far beyond Manchester and, thanks to his tireless efforts, truly has the potential to reach around the world. I thank Bill Strickland for his contribution to the City of Pittsburgh, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and our Nation. Mr. President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues in remembering our friend and colleague Senator Daniel Inouye. Dan Inouye dedicated his life to Hawaii and represented Hawaii from when it achieved statehood until his death. Senator Inouye was respected and loved by members of both parties and both chambers. He was the last Senator to serve with both Everett Dirksen and Richard Russell. Senator Inouye learned early the importance of doing something for the good of the Nation and the good of the Senate, as well as the importance of personal relationships and trust among colleagues. For Dan Inouye, his word was his bond and that applied to Democrats and Republicans alike. He became the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the Senate President Pro-Tempore, was the second longest serving Senator in history and served on special committees investigating the Watergate and Iran Contra scandals. At the time of his death, he had long become a Senate giant in his own right. Long before reaching the Senate, Dan Inouye was an American hero. Enlisting in the Army after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, he served in Europe earning a Bronze Star, Purple Heart and Distinguished Service Cross for helping his fellow soldiers while suffering terrible injuries. Later in life, President Clinton would confer upon him the Medal of Honor. His moral character and life experiences made Senator Inouye a leader on many of the pressing issues of the day from civil rights to veterans benefits and from health care to helping people with disabilities. Through his position on the Appropriations Committee, Senator Inouye was able to direct funding to important projects and research that helped bring about important advancements as well as simply help people. Dan Inouye was also a strong supporter of Israel and the Jewish community. From his advocacy on behalf of Holocaust survivors, to his efforts to help free Jews from the former Soviet Union to his influential role in securing funding for Israel, Senator Inouye was a tireless friend and advocate. He was given the nickname ``Trumpeldor'' after a Zionist hero, Joseph Trumpeldor. In closing, I am reminded of a quote used to eulogize Daniel Webster that President Nixon used when eulogizing Everett Dirksen, ``Our great men are the common property of the country.'' Senator Inouye was indeed a great man and our country is better off today for his commitment, his conscience and his years of dedicated service.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, as we confront a whole range of difficult issues at the end of this year and at the end of this Congress, we should also be reminded we have fighting men and women serving for us all over the world. We think especially tonight of those serving in Afghanistan and those who served prior to that time in Iraq. At various times we have come to the floor and recited the names of those who were killed in action, and tonight I am joined by my colleague Senator Toomey to read the names of Pennsylvanians who gave, as Lincoln said, the last full measure of devotion to their country--those who have been killed in action in Afghanistan over the course of parts of 2011 and 2012. I yield the floor for my colleague, Senator Toomey.

Mr. CASEY. I thank the Senator for reading the first half of our names, and I will continue with 20 more names: Sgt Derek Lee Shanfield, U.S. Marine Corps, Hastings, PA; SFC Robert James Fike, U.S. Army, Conneautville; SFC Bryan Alan Hoover, U.S. Army, West Elizabeth; Sgt Joseph Davis Caskey, U.S. Marine Corps, Pittsburgh; LCpl Joshua Thomas Twigg, U.S. Marine Corps, Indiana; CPL Joshua Alexander Harton, U.S. Army, Bethlehem; LCpl Ralph John Fabbri, U.S. Marine Corps, Gallitzin; SSG David Jee Weigle, U.S. Army, Philadelphia; Cpl Eric Michael Torbet, Jr., U.S. Marine Corps, Lancaster; CPL Jarrid Lee King, U.S. Army, Erie; SGT Robert Curtis Sisson, Jr., U.S. Army, Aliquippa; PFC John Francis Kihm, U.S. Army, Philadelphia; 1SG Kenneth Brian Elwell, U.S. Army, Erie; SGT Edward William Koehler III, U.S. Army, Lebanon; SSG Brian Keith Mowery, U.S. Army, Halifax; SSG Kenneth Rowland Vangiesen, U.S. Army, Erie; SrA Bryan Richard Bell, U.S. Air Force, Erie; CPT Michael Cean Braden, U.S. Army, Lock Haven; PFC Cameron James Stambaugh, U.S. Army, Spring Grove; and finally, SSG Brandon Robert Pepper, U.S. Army, York, PA. As I conclude the list of Pennsylvanians who were killed in action over approximately a 2-year time period in Afghanistan--and one of the names that was read was killed in Iraq--we remember and think of them, and obviously we are paying tribute to them on a night like tonight. At the same time, we are also thinking of their families as we pay tribute to them. I am reminded of the great recording artist Bruce Springsteen. One of his songs was entitled ``You're Missing,'' and the refrain over and over again is ``you're missing.'' He was able to sing, but I won't. The song goes something like this: You're missing when I shut out the lights; you're missing when I close my eyes; you're missing when I see the sunrise. For all those families out there who lost someone in Afghanistan, Iraq, or in other conflicts, we are thinking of them tonight because they are missing someone in the midst of this end-of-the-year and holiday season. We are remembering them tonight and paying tribute to those they loved and lost and also remembering them in our prayers. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the National Defense Authorization bill and how it will impact the structure of the Air Force moving forward. Of particular concern to me and my constituents is the Pittsburgh Air Reserve Station, home of the 911th Airlift Wing located outside Pittsburgh. In its FY13 request, the Air Force proposed the retirement of the installation's C-130 fleet and, by connection, the closure of 911th. I have worked closely with the Pennsylvania delegation to fight against this proposed closure and I would in particular like to thank Senator Toomey and Congressmen Murphy, Doyle and Critz for all of their work on this critical issue. We all fought so hard against this proposed closure because we believe that the Air Force proposal did not reflect a thorough analysis of the merits of the 911th Airlift Wing, nor its associated cost savings. In its FY13 Force Structure proposal, the Air Force did not provide any analysis on how the closure of the 911th would impact the local community. The lack of transparency associated with the Air Force's initial proposal and infrastructure changes around the country is extremely troubling. This is why I supported the freeze and the establishment of the National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force as mandated by the FY13 NDAA reported out of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The 911th is a very efficient and cost effective unit installation that is truly part of the proudly patriotic community in the Pittsburgh area. Its aircraft maintenance program has resulted in an increase of aircraft availability days while saving the Pentagon more than $42 million over the last five years. Additionally, the Pentagon pays only $20,000 to lease more than 100 acres for the Wing, which is a small sum when compared to the parallel costs at other bases and installations. Finally and perhaps most importantly, an incredibly skilled and experienced workforce is employed at the 911th installation, a significant and irreplaceable resource for the Air Force. It would be a terrible waste of taxpayer dollars if this installation were to close at this critical time. I am disappointed in the conferees for removing language that we voted on here in the Senate which would have frozen any infrastructure changes within the Air Force in FY13. I think that this decision was misguided and wrong. But I understand that the bill also requires the Air Force to maintain an additional combination of 32 C-130s and C-27s. I strongly believe that the 911th is a prime candidate for a new mission that is commensurate with the decades long experience of its workforce and support from the community. On its merits and in the interests of the taxpayer, a sustainable mission should be instituted at the 911th. I think we are in a very strong position to make that case and I look forward to working closely with the Air Force to protect this critical installation. It is in our National interests that our best citizens are able to continue serving their country. In Pittsburgh, some of these citizens have served our country proudly for generations. We should do all we can to support this tradition of service because it makes economic sense and is in our best national security interests.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise today to talk about the farm bill, which is typically a 5-year bill, and we hope we can achieve that once again. We know the Senate passed a farm bill a number of months ago-- actually, in June--but the House has yet to bring the bill to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. There is really no excuse for that. It doesn't make any sense, first and foremost, because of the impact this bill has on our economy, our farm families, the agricultural sector of our economy, and what it also means to make sure folks have enough to eat. This includes the antihunger and nutrition strategies in the farm bill as well. But, unfortunately, the House has not passed it. I think the leadership in the House should consider why we need the farm bill to pass, and they should also consider what happened here in the Senate. We had a very bipartisan process, lots of amendments, and plenty of debate, but not some of the harsh debate we have seen in the context of other issues, and it worked very well. Not everyone got everything they wanted, and folks were willing to work together and compromise. We got a bipartisan vote in the Senate, and that is hard to achieve even on something as important as a farm bill. I wish to commend the work that was done at that time by our chairwoman, Senator Stabenow of the State of Michigan. She led the fight, working with Senator Roberts. They worked together not just on the substance, but they worked together in a manner that allowed it to be bipartisan. In my work representing the people of Pennsylvania, I have made it a priority to keep Pennsylvania's agricultural industry and our rural economy strong to support families in Pennsylvania. Agriculture is our State's largest industry. Pennsylvania's farm gate value, which is another way of describing cash receipts to growers, in the last number that we have, which is a 2010 number, was $5.7 billion. A lot of people who probably haven't spent much time in Pennsylvania think of it as a State of big cities and small towns, but they may miss the substantial agricultural economy we have. Agribusiness in our State is a $46.4 billion industry, with 17.5 percent of Pennsylvanians employed in the so-called food and fiber system. One of the questions we have to ask is, What does this all mean? Well, I think it certainly means at least that we need a 5-year farm bill, not a short-term farm bill. We do too much of that around here on other areas of public policy. We should do what we have always done in the Senate, long before I got here--pass 5-year bills with regard to the farm bill. It does create economic opportunities in rural areas, and it sustains the consumers and businesses that rely upon our rural economy. The Senate-passed farm bill would reduce the deficit by approximately $23 billion through the elimination of some subsidies, the consolidation of programs, and by producing greater efficiencies in the delivery mechanisms in programs. We are having a big debate about the end of the year and the fiscal challenges we have. When you have those debates, you have to come to the table with deficit reducers, ways to reduce deficit and debt. Passage of the farm bill would be in furtherance of that goal--a $23 billion reduction in the deficit. A short-term extension wouldn't provide the same reforms, nor would a short-term extension provide the cost savings. When we consider what farmers and farm families have to do every day--I mean, they have to milk cows, and our dairy farmers do it so well and do it every day; they have to just do their job. Sometimes they wonder about Congress when they know we have a job to do and it doesn't get executed. We should follow their example and do our job. The House can lead on this because it is in their court, so to speak, right now, by reauthorizing the farm bill in a responsible way that helps contribute to deficit reduction. I mentioned dairy farmers in terms of our agricultural economy in Pennsylvania. Dairy is the largest sector of that, so dairy is the largest sector of the biggest part of the Pennsylvania economy, which is agriculture. The industry generates more than $1.5 billion in cash receipts and represents about 42 percent of our total agricultural receipts. Dairy farmers deserve the best program possible. The Senate bill contains many improvements that I support, but right now dairy farmers don't have any program to manage their risks in a time of low prices. By the first of January, the Department of Agriculture will be obligated to implement for dairy products what we call permanent law. What this means is that prices farmers receive can almost double, but it also means higher costs to the government and consumers, as well as longer term risks of lower consumer demand and increased imports. So we need to make sure we take steps now to prevent some of the consequences of inaction, some of the consequences of the House not moving a 5-year farm bill through their process in the House. There are so many other important items. I will just rattle off a few of them in the context of having a 5-year farm bill, not something less. In the Senate-passed bill, we worked to address the unique concerns of specialty crop farmers, organic farmers, and new farmers--so-called beginning farmers. We did so in a bipartisan way. Second, I am committed--and I know a lot of folks in this Chamber are committed--to rural communities. Those in my State of Pennsylvania are too numerous to count, the number of communities that are considered rural. Part of that effort that I have to undertake--and all of us should--is to support rural development programs that provide access to capital for rural businesses to provide economic opportunities and create jobs. We have people take the floor here all the time and talk about small businesses or businesses in general and that Congress isn't responsive enough to businesses. Often, that is true. I would hope they would walk across and give the same speech to their friends in the House that one of the best ways to help rural businesses is to pass the 5-year farm bill right away. We know farmers are the original stewards of the land and continue to lead the charge in protecting our natural resources. I believe the voluntary conservation programs in the farm bill provide important tools to help farmers comply with Federal and State regulations while keeping farmers in business. Conservation programs are an extremely important resource for many Pennsylvania farmers. We have a great conservation tradition in our State. This bill would enhance and build upon that great record of conservation in Pennsylvania and across the country. We also wanted to focus on helping those who don't have enough to eat and making sure we are doing everything possible to enhance or improve nutrition by the many strategies in the farm bill that involve nutrition. There is no better opportunity to strengthen nutrition policy in the nutrition programs than through a well-crafted 5-year farm bill. The people of Pennsylvania and folks across the country deserve certainty, and a 5-year farm bill would help us move in that direction. If the House leadership is serious about a prosperous future for the country, the House must pass the 5-year farm bill right now. I urge the House leadership to appreciate the significance of having a 5-year bill for farmers, for consumers, and for families. If the Senate, as it has done, can pass a bipartisan farm bill the way we did, I have no doubt-- no doubt whatever--that the House can do the same. Madam President, I yield the floor.