Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

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 September 21, at 10 a.m.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Nationals Parks be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 21, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on September 21, 2011, at 11 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Countering Terrorist Financing: Progress and Priorities.''

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on September 21, 2011, at 2 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Power of Google: Serving Consumers or Threatening Competition?''

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 21, 2011, in room SDG-50 in the Dirksen Senate Office Building beginning at 10 a.m.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 21, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Transforming Wartime Contracting: Recommendations of the Commission on Wartime Contracting.''

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 21, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 21, 2011 at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Dually-Eligible Beneficiaries: Improving Care While Lowering Costs.''

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 21, 2011, at 10 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I wish to address some of the points raised by our colleague from Arizona--just a couple areas; one is the question of the impact of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, which has been enhanced by way of the Recovery Act of 2009. I will talk about some of the reforms as well and maybe address some of the cost questions. First, with regard to trade adjustment assistance prior to the 2009 period versus the period after that, I wish to submit for the Record-- and then I will walk through some of this--this document entitled ``Trade and Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act (TGAAA) Worker Certification 5/18/2009-6/27/2011.'' This is a Department of Labor document. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY. Let me go through, by way of summary, what this depicts. First of all, it is a document that has three columns; first is the ``Estimated Total Workers Certified Under New Provisions,'' meaning the changes made to TAA as a result of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; the second column is the ``Estimated Total Workers Certified . . .''--meaning certified under TAA--`` . . . Under All Provisions of TAA''; finally is the ``Estimated Percent of Workers Certified Under New Provisions'' as a result of the changes made. And what it shows is, if you look across the country, the estimated total workers certified under all provisions is 447,235 people. Of that, the increase--in essence because of the 2009 changes--is 185,783. And if you look at the percentage, that is a 41-percent increase. So the basic point here--after a long explanation--is very simple. Because of the changes made in 2009, we were able to help--the U.S. Government, by way of TAA--41 percent more individuals. That is relevant because it was helping folks to be retrained, helping them to get the skills they needed for a new career, a new job, at the time they needed it--during the worst economic catastrophe in 100 years, other than the Great Depression. So if there were ever a time when we needed to make sure that TAA worked--and it has worked--and, also, if there were ever a time when we wanted to make sure that TAA was strengthened and enhanced, it was during the last couple of years. That is the point, that the 2009 changes were made because we were in the throes, the teeth, the grip of the worst economic downturn in 100 years, other than in the 1930s. Let me highlight a couple of States. For example, in my home State of Pennsylvania, what all this means, if you look at the total number of workers helped in this time period--again, talking about roughly the 2 years between May of 2009 to June of 2011 in Pennsylvania--there were 27,401 people helped. Workers helped, I should say. Of that, about 36 percent were helped solely because of the Recovery Act changes. I know a good bit about the workers in our State. They needed that help. They needed the help that was provided as a result of the Recovery Act. So we have good evidence a lot of folks were helped, certified, and then enrolled in programs to give them the skills they needed. The Presiding Officer is from the State of New York, and she knows how difficult this recession has been on workers in New York. The total number of workers certified in New York in that 2-year time period was 18,795. But half of that number, a little more than 50 percent, were helped as a result of the 2009 changes that were made. I say that to highlight and emphasize that the 2009 changes allowed more workers to be retrained, to get the skills they needed to go back to work. I think that is what we are all about here. Democrats and Republicans all say they want workers to get back into the workforce. This is one of the ways we do it. It is very practical. In order to get from here to there--from unemployment to employment, and in a lot of cases to a new job or a new career--you need to be trained. That is what TAA does. I will highlight two or three more States. Chairman Baucus, from the great State of Montana, his State was helped as well. Their increase, based upon the 2009 changes, was close to 50 percent. So almost 50 percent more workers in the State of Montana were helped as well to get the skills they needed. Let me mention as well my colleague Senator Brown who has worked so hard on this. There were 7,706 more workers in the State of Ohio who were certified to get the skills and training they needed because of these changes. And, finally, I will mention as well our colleague from Arizona. If we look at the total number of Arizona workers certified, there were 8,540 workers certified in total, but of that 8,540, the increase was some 4,969. So in Arizona, the increase of workers who were helped or certified for new training, there was a 58.16-percent increase. So the increase in Arizona was even higher, and in some States it was even higher than that. The point here is that 2009 changes weren't just a couple of changes made to enhance the program or expand it for the sake of expanding a program. I think the evidence shows we have certified more workers. These workers have to go through a process to be certified in order for us to provide help by way of the Federal Government and other partners who are helping us retrain workers. I think the evidence is pretty clear that has been a very positive change, giving more workers the skills they needed to compete. Let me say as well about our colleague from Arizona that I appreciate what he said about TAA, and that he supports it. We may have a disagreement about how to get there. He apparently doesn't want the 2009 changes to be made part of any effort going forward, but I appreciate the fact he has expressed support for TAA. I also appreciate the fact that when Senator Baucus, Senator Brown, I, and others in the latter days of 2010 were trying to get an expansion of TAA, Senator McCain worked with us to try to negotiate something. He was very willing to talk and to work and to come together, and I appreciate that, because we need that bipartisanship, we need that collegiality to move this forward. So even though we have a disagreement about the changes made, I appreciate his willingness to work with us back in December and to continue to work with us. Let me make one or two more points. One basic point about reform. Folks will criticize programs and say programs aren't sometimes going through the kind of changes we hoped for in reforming them. But we should note for the record that in 2008, the GAO released a study which highlighted a number of issues with trade adjustment assistance. They set forth findings. That is why GAO is important. We shouldn't allow programs to go on for years without some sort of reporting, accountability, performance measures, or whatever you wish to call it. GAO pointed out problems they believed could be the subject of reform for TAA, and those recommendations were the foundation for some of the changes in the 2009 Recovery Act we are debating here on the floor, and we are debating as a result of Senator McCain's amendment. Here is what they are. I will highlight them quickly. Here is what we are talking about. The amendment we are considering, or the effort we are working on to expand TAA, does a number of things we should highlight. In addition to making more workers eligible for training, it does a couple of things. First of all, it consolidates administration--that is important to highlight--it consolidates case management, and it consolidates job search and relocation funding under the new dollars for job training. The amendment also eliminates separate funding streams that were in place before, but it also allows States the flexibility to use a portion of the training funds for administration and for case management costs. States must prioritize these funds for training and case management, but administrative costs are capped at 10 percent of the funds and States can also use these funds to pay for 90 percent of the cost of job search and relocation up to $1,250. Finally, the amendment includes 30 new performance metrics and accountability measures across all TAA programs. So what is the point? The point is very simple. We had a GAO study in 2008 that recommended changes to TAA. We had a Recovery Act introduced and enacted for a variety of reasons, some of which spoke directly to TAA in 2009. The reforms from the GAO study were incorporated in the 2009 changes. So if we stay with the original non-2009 provisions, we won't have these reforms built in. GAO had pointed out some issues we should address, they were addressed in 2009, and that is another good reason why we should support the amendment that would include those 2009 changes. Finally, on the question of costs or offsets, the 10-year cost for TAA is now $962 million over 10 years. That is cut way back. In fact, it has been cut by as much as half. We will talk about them more in the record, but there are three offsets. The first, so-called ``merchandise processing fee,'' raises $1.77 billion; the second, on unemployment insurance, accounts for $320 million; and then finally, the Medicare quality improvement organizations raises another $330 million. So there are offsets--three in number--and the total cost is now $962 million over 10 years. I think it is a reasonable price to pay for the substantial training and retraining that TAA provides for our workers who are living the horrific nightmare of job loss and the destruction of their careers, and, frankly, in many cases, the destruction of their family. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all time in a quorum call be divided equally.

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the amendment the majority leader just called up. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Program in particular is what I will focus on in my remarks. I want to, first of all, thank the majority leader for his leadership on this issue, helping us get started today. I am particularly grateful for the strong leadership Chairman Baucus has provided, the chairman of our Finance Committee. I thank him and his staff for their tireless efforts, not just leading up to today but over a long period of time. He has been such a strong advocate for this program. For many months Chairman Baucus has led the charge to assure that a strong Trade Adjustment Assistance Program is reinstated because it is important public policy for our workers, to get them retrained and to make sure they have the skills needed to compete in such a tough economy. I appreciate his work. I also appreciate Chairman Baucus's work for many years fighting for workers, especially when their jobs are at risk, their livelihoods and their families' economic security. I thank Chairman Baucus and so many others. My colleague Senator Brown of Ohio has been a tremendous leader on this issue as well. One thing we all understand, whether we are Democrats or Republicans or Independents, is that we are still in the midst, still in the grip of a jobs crisis all across the country. It knows no geographic boundaries, it knows no party. People are worried, concerned that their jobs will continually be at risk. Some, of course, have already lost their jobs--almost 14\1/2\ million Americans at last count. In the midst of that crisis, it is critically important that we take the steps here to make sure those who want to get back into the workforce, those who want to improve their skills or be retrained in some way or another, have that opportunity. We know in the next couple of weeks the Congress will be taking up free trade agreements. But before we do that, before we begin the debate, before we consider those agreements, we have to make sure our workers have the protections they need to deal with the ravages of unfair foreign competition. There are lots of ways to talk about this program and this issue. Some of them, frankly, get a little academic. The best way for me to understand the importance of trade adjustment assistance is very much consistent with the recent and unfortunate economic history of my home State of Pennsylvania. In our Commonwealth--by way of one example, but it is the best example I can cite because of the numbers of workers affected--in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the 1970s and 1980s, in a short period of time, in less than a decade, we had tens of thousands of steelworkers lose their jobs. These were folks who worked in steel mills, not just for a couple of years but in many instances decades. They would graduate from high school, go into the steel mill and be virtually guaranteed of a job for the rest of their lives--a good job with good benefits on which they could support their families. Then we know what happened to those workers and that industry. A lot of their jobs were destroyed in the 1970s and 1980s because of the decline of the steel industry. It is at times such as that, when someone who has worked their whole life and put all of their energies into a job and that job goes away in a matter of weeks or months or a few short years, we have to make sure we are there for them at that moment. One of the ways we can be there for them is with trade adjustment assistance. I and every Member of the Senate could point to other examples as well, but I remember that horrific history in Pennsylvania where families were destroyed because of the loss of a job. Our trade policies have hit a lot of American workers very hard. Especially today we are seeing that. I mentioned Pennsylvania's manufacturing jobs as an example. According to an analysis by the Joint Economic Committee, of which I am the chairman, from 1997 to 2010--just 13 years--manufacturing went from 16.4 percent of the gross State product of Pennsylvania down to 12.1 percent. In 13 years, a short period of time, there was that kind of decline in manufacturing jobs, from roughly 16.5 to 12. In total, the job loss in Pennsylvania manufacturing was nearly 300,000 good-paying jobs. While trade adjustment assistance cannot bring those jobs back, we can take steps to help those workers in a tough time as they transition to new employment, to new skills and to new opportunities. Many displaced workers need considerable training to reenter the labor market. Imagine if any one of us did the same job for years or decades and then had to turn on a dime to adjust to the difficulties in the economy. It takes a while. According to a report by the Joint Economic Committee as well, many of these folks who have lost their jobs are much older than the rest of the workforce. They need to gain a number of skills. Fifty-seven percent of current participants in the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program are 45 years of age or older--57 percent. Trade adjustment assistance can better address the needs of these displaced workers by requiring training and giving additional time for workers to gain the skills necessary to reenter the workforce to prepare to compete in a tough economy, in a world economy. We know these programs work. We know, based upon the JEC report I cited earlier, 53 percent of those who participated in Trade Adjustment Assistance Programs were reemployed within 3 months; 53 percent were reemployed after 3 months after leaving the program itself. These participants also found lasting employment, with 80 percent of those workers employed within the first 3 months remaining employed by an additional 6 months. We know that in 2009, several reforms were made to the program to reflect the realities of the modern workforce and the modern labor market. The amendment I offer today with my colleague Senator Brown of Ohio would reinstate these reforms, including the following, by way of an economic summary: No. 1, providing trade adjustment assistance benefits to service sector workers; No. 2, covering workers whose firms shift production to non-free-trade agreement partner countries--for example, China and India. We hear a lot of people talking around here about how we have to compete with China and India and keep our workers at a high skill level to do that. This is one way to do that. No. 3, finally, increasing the health care tax credit subsidy to 72.5 percent and hereby addressing one of the most significant costs for those without a job, the cost of health insurance. We all know, and I know firsthand, the benefits of a strong trade adjustment assistance program based upon what has happened in Pennsylvania over many years. According to the Department of Labor, from May of 2009 through June of 2011--a little more than 2 years--nearly 10,000 additional workers qualified for assistance due to these essential reforms in Pennsylvania. So the reforms we made in 2009 have helped nearly 10,000 workers in Pennsylvania. If you look at it nationwide, 185,783 additional workers were certified for TAA participation because of those reforms. In total, trade adjustment assistance has assisted nearly half a million people over this time period. Our action this week will ensure that thousands of American workers will be able to count on retraining and other support if they lose their job through no fault of their own. More and more jobs--and we all know this but it bears repeating--have been sent overseas, leaving workers out in the cold. Nothing they did has caused outsourcing of their job, and yet they are left with the consequences and their families suffer with those same consequences. To get jobs in new industries, workers need new skills. They need to be retrained and introduced to new skills. Trade adjustment assistance helps those workers hurt by foreign trade get back to work, while also ensuring workers have a skilled workforce at the same time. Finally, let me urge all my colleagues to support this amendment. Trade adjustment assistance has a long and proud history of bipartisan support in the Senate, and I hope we can continue that with this amendment and with this work. Those who have been affected by this know this story better than I or better than any of us, and it is about time we stood with those workers when they and their families are suffering. I would yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today over 15 percent of Americans live in poverty including 22 percent of our children. 46.2 million Americans and 16.4 million children struggle every day to survive in a system that is demoralizing and unfortunately does more to maintain people who live in poverty than to help them escape. Last year, 2.6 million Americans were added to the poverty rolls and 8.9 million have been added since 2007. This must change. That is why I am today reintroducing the National Opportunity and Community Renewal Act. This legislation puts forth some new ideas and will grant waivers to ten communities so they can test different approaches to combatting poverty. I am not saying this is the only path forward or the most suitable path forward. But we must begin somewhere and we must take a comprehensive approach. As Robert Kennedy once said when talking about tackling the poverty problem in our country, we must ``grab the web whole.'' Piecemeal approaches won't work. I know there are other Senators and Congressmen along with policy professionals and academics who share my concern and commitment to reducing poverty. I invite people to review this proposal. Let me know what you think and if you have other ideas to bring them to the table. It is long past time to reinstill our national commitment to the least fortunate. We must also acknowledge that there is not one answer to helping people out of poverty. That is why this legislation is important. It will allow communities to pursue innovative approaches to problems arising from poverty and avoids a ``one size fits all'' method. This legislation also targets individuals and mandates the creation of an individual opportunity plan for every household. It also helps address the root causes of poverty by giving local communities to design programs that fit their community and they would not be restricted by the current law. These pilots will help us test new ideas and understand how new approaches can help lift people out of poverty. In closing, I should note it has been almost fifty years since Michael Harrington published The Other America and opened Americans eyes to the pernicious impact of poverty. While there have been improvements made in the ensuing years we still have a long way to go. Let us begin anew today.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today over 15 percent of Americans live in poverty including 22 percent of our children. 46.2 million Americans and 16.4 million children struggle every day to survive in a system that is demoralizing and unfortunately does more to maintain people who live in poverty than to help them escape. Last year, 2.6 million Americans were added to the poverty rolls and 8.9 million have been added since 2007. This must change. That is why I am today reintroducing the National Opportunity and Community Renewal Act. This legislation puts forth some new ideas and will grant waivers to ten communities so they can test different approaches to combatting poverty. I am not saying this is the only path forward or the most suitable path forward. But we must begin somewhere and we must take a comprehensive approach. As Robert Kennedy once said when talking about tackling the poverty problem in our country, we must ``grab the web whole.'' Piecemeal approaches won't work. I know there are other Senators and Congressmen along with policy professionals and academics who share my concern and commitment to reducing poverty. I invite people to review this proposal. Let me know what you think and if you have other ideas to bring them to the table. It is long past time to reinstill our national commitment to the least fortunate. We must also acknowledge that there is not one answer to helping people out of poverty. That is why this legislation is important. It will allow communities to pursue innovative approaches to problems arising from poverty and avoids a ``one size fits all'' method. This legislation also targets individuals and mandates the creation of an individual opportunity plan for every household. It also helps address the root causes of poverty by giving local communities to design programs that fit their community and they would not be restricted by the current law. These pilots will help us test new ideas and understand how new approaches can help lift people out of poverty. In closing, I should note it has been almost fifty years since Michael Harrington published The Other America and opened Americans eyes to the pernicious impact of poverty. While there have been improvements made in the ensuing years we still have a long way to go. Let us begin anew today.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise today in favor of this resolution to recognize the importance of the National Veterans Wheelchair games which will be held in Pittsburgh, PA, starting August 1. This resolution recognizes the great contributions that this event makes towards improving the lives of disabled veterans and commends the organizers of this event. I am proud to welcome veterans from across the country to Pittsburgh, PA, this year as they participate in the 31st annual National Veterans Wheelchair Games. The games offer veterans with disabilities an opportunity to foster improved health through competition. Veterans can participate in 17 different events which include swimming, rugby, bowling, soccer and track and field events. These games have allowed for veterans, including those who have served in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom a chance to meet with other wheelchair athletes and to continue to use their athletic skills in competition. Participants come from almost every State in the United States, from Puerto Rico and from the United Kingdom. They range from world class athletes to first time competitors. A quarter of the athletes will be participating for the first time. As a Senator representing the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, home to over 1 million veterans, the care and treatment of veterans is one of my highest priorities. I firmly believe that this country must be grateful for the safe homecoming of every single man and woman who has served in harm's way. Our joy at their return must be reflected in our commitment to helping all those who have served, especially those who are coping with devastating physical injuries and illnesses. During my time in the U.S. Senate, I have sponsored and supported legislation to help our Nation's veterans. I strongly believe that treatment and rehabilitation of our Nation's veterans should be among our highest priorities. These games offer our Nation's veterans an opportunity to overcome adversity and work towards rehabilitation. As such the games deserve our support and attention. It is with great pride that I offer this resolution to recognize the contribution that this event makes towards improving the lives of disabled veterans and commend the organizers and volunteers of this event. I thank Senator Toomey for joining me in sponsoring this and I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of this resolution.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, we are faced with a difficult challenge, and we know the American people watching us over so many days now understand the basic challenge we face. It is a challenge of reducing deficit and debt and cutting spending but also making sure we have a bipartisan agreement to pay our bills and to meet our obligations. I think if I had to boil it down to four words, it is these, in terms of what people in Pennsylvania have told me we must do. It is very simple, but I think it encapsulates everything we have to do in the next couple hours--the next couple days--and that is compromise for our country. That is what people are looking for, people all across the country. I hear from families in Pennsylvania all the time. These are families who have led lives of struggle and sacrifice, families who have lived through so much already. Many remember and have lived through the Great Depression and World War II and wars after that, economic downturns, personal tragedies, job loss--all kinds of misery and all kinds of difficulty. But throughout our State, and I think throughout the country, people have figured out a way to work together, to compromise in their own lives, even when they don't want to make a compromise, and they have figured out a way to work together, whether it is at a work site or at home. I hear these same messages from people all the time. Let me give a sample of some of the feedback I have gotten from Pennsylvanians just in the last couple days. We purposefully chose three excerpts from three letters from three parts of our State: southwestern Pennsylvania, the middle of the State, and the eastern side of our State. From Fayette County, way out in western Pennsylvania, here is an excerpt from a letter I just received: In order that we do not dip back into recession, it is imperative that responsible people start acting in a responsible manner. Get this issue resolved in a manner that is best for the American people and not what is best for ``political parties.'' That is part of one letter from southwestern Pennsylvania. Then, I move to the middle of our State, literally called Centre County: Please stop the bickering and work together to get the job done. . . . Do your jobs. Come to a compromise. That is what people in the middle of Pennsylvania wrote to me just recently. Then, thirdly, an excerpt from a letter in the eastern part of our State, Bucks County, a suburban Philadelphia community. I will read two sentences from this letter: We must immediately raise the debt ceiling so that we do not default on our debt payments that would negatively impact our Nation. Next we must tighten our belts and develop plans to reduce expenditures and raise revenue which would pay off all debt just like my family's household did. There we have it, three parts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, three different letters from three different constituents, all expressing some fundamental, basic sentiments they have and I think some very fundamental messages. What are they? I think I can boil them down to four. The first is work together and compromise. That is in almost every letter we see: work together and compromise. The second is they want us to cut spending. They know that in their own lives they have had to cut spending. They have had to change their spending habits to deal with this economic trauma they have been living through. Even if they haven't lost a job, even if they haven't lost their house or their hopes or their dreams, they have had to cut spending. The third is to focus on jobs. One of the casualties of week after week of focusing on this question of raising the debt ceiling meant we weren't taking action to incentivize the creation of jobs by use of the Tax Code or other strategies. Fourthly, I think the message they are telling us, obviously, is to reduce deficit and debt. They know we may not be able to put in place a plan right now to be able to do that, but they expect us to put in place the foundation for that or strategy or a pathway to get to substantial deficit and debt reduction. So whether it is cutting spending or reducing deficit and debt or whether it is telling us to compromise and work together or focus on jobs, I think the message the people of Pennsylvania are giving me--and by extension all of us--is very clear. That is why, when I look at what is in front of us tonight when we are debating--we are going to be debating the proposal set forth by the majority leader--some basic elements in here that aren't just sound policy, but they are, in fact, incorporating compromise, already significant compromise; for example, making sure that if one side said we have to have a dollar-for-dollar reduction in spending to meet the challenge of raising the debt ceiling, the majority leader's plan does that. One side says we should not have any revenue, we should not have any additional revenue as part of this agreement. The majority leader said: OK. I will accept that. I will compromise. So there are two significant and substantial compromises he has already made in this proposal, and he is open to more, as he has said all day long, and for many days now, he has been open to more compromise. The legislation cuts spending significantly. There is almost $2 trillion alone in spending reductions for so-called discretionary spending. There are lots of savings in other ways throughout the legislation. It creates a bipartisan committee that will recommend additional deficit reduction to be voted on by the end of this year. Then, an important part of what the majority leader has put forward today--or yesterday, I guess--in his proposal was part of what Senator McConnell put forth, the Republican leader. So by my count, there are three or four major compromises already in what the majority leader put forth. And he is open to more compromise. I think that is what the people of Pennsylvania expect me to do, and I think that is what the people of the United States expect all of us to do. Finally, one of the best parts of this proposal is that it gives us certainty. I hear from businesspeople all the time--big firms, medium- sized firms, and small businesses. They tell us over and over that in addition to the pressure they feel--the difficulty they have in keeping their employment levels up, the difficulty they have in making ends meet in the aftermath of a recession--they tell us over and over: We are business leaders, and we need certainty or I am running a small business in Pennsylvania, and I need certainty. I need to know what my tax rates will be. I need to know what the business climate will be like. Please give me certainty. One of the best features of what the majority leader put forth is there is certainty. We are not going to have to debate this and fight about it every 6 months. It provides some certainty into calendar year 2013. That is why I think a 6-month extension makes no sense at all. But you do not have to take our word for it. The rating agencies have made it very clear--if you do a 6-month extension, you are taking a very dangerous step that could lead to a downgrade in our credit rating. So I think the Reid plan already has substantial compromise, and, of course, we can compromise more. So I think it is very clear what the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are telling me. In the midst of all the suffering--in our case, 479,000 people still out of work. We have an unemployment rate of 7.6, which some States wish they had. But it does not really matter what a percentage is; when you have 479,000 people out of work, even though the number has been going down for the last year, people are hurting. They are still struggling. They are still worried. They are anxious. They are worried about their children's future. The least they ask of us in this debate, the least we must do for them, is to come together, work together, surrender some political points of view, surrender some personal disagreements we have, come together, and reach a compromise. I believe what they are telling us over and over is that we need a compromise for our country. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about legislation I have introduced, the Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act, or Campus SaVE Act, and to urge my colleagues to support this bill. I want to start by sharing some deeply disturbing statistics with you: Between 20 and 25 percent of all female undergraduates in America are victims of sexual assault or attempted sexual assault each year. Most cases of sexual assault occur between acquaintances--between 85 and 90 percent of reported sexual assaults on college women are perpetrated by someone they know, and nearly half of such sexual assaults occur on a date. Young adults age 18 and 19 experience the highest rates of stalking among any age group. As the father of four daughters, one of whom who just graduated from college and another who is in college now, these statistics are terrifying. But I was even more distressed to learn that many of these victims never come forward. Those who do often do not get the support and the assistance they need to heal and to be able to continue their education safely and successfully. The Campus SaVE Act will address many of these issues by setting out a clear framework to promote transparency and accountability. The legislation consolidates existing polices under both the Jeanne Clery Act and title IX to ensure that institutions of higher education have comprehensive procedures in place to address domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. Institutions of higher education are already required to report certain crime statistics as a result of the Clery Act, a law championed by our former colleague, Senator Specter, after Jeanne Clery was raped and murdered in her college dorm room in 1989. But only one-third of U.S. colleges correctly report their crime statistics, leading to misclassification and underrepresentation of attempted and completed instances of sexual assault. They are not currently required to break down their data on different types of sex offenses, leading to confusion and unclear data about reports of domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. The Campus SaVE Act will also address the need for education and awareness in the entire campus community. Currently, less than half of all colleges and universities offer any sexual assault prevention training; the Campus SaVE Act will require that these institutions provide prevention and awareness programs for all incoming students and new employees. This education is essential. Many students attending college are away from home for the first time and are still in their teenage years and learning about adult relationships. We cannot assume that they know what dating violence is; we cannot assume that they know what constitutes consent in a sexual relationship. A victim also may not know what to do when something bad happens: less than 5 percent of rapes or attempted rapes are reported, and fewer than half of colleges and universities spell out policies for filing criminal charges and campus reports. However, when students know how to report victimization and how their school will respond, students are more likely to report instances of sexual assault or attempted sexual assault. Dickinson College in Carlisle, PA, recently saw students hold a sit- in for 3\1/2\ days, displaying their frustration over the college's weak sexual assault policy. One student remarked, ``We don't have a consolidated document that runs you through what you should do and also allows you to understand that there are federal laws that protect you.'' This is exactly what the Campus SaVE Act would require. It sets standards for institutions so that everyone in the community understands their rights and responsibilities. Fortunately, the administration at Dickinson College later agreed to strengthen its policies relating to sexual assault. Under the Campus SaVE Act, students will know that if they report being a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, they will receive an explanation of their rights. They need to know they have a right to report these offenses to law enforcement authorities. They need to know that the college or university has an obligation to help them seek a protective order, if they want such an order. They need to know that they will receive contact information for the resources available to them, such as counseling and legal assistance. Finally, they need to know about safety planning such as changing their living arrangements, class schedule, work schedule, and travel options so that they feel safe in their environment. The bill will also ensure that these incidents are properly reported by making institutions include in their annual security reports statistics on domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking that were reported to campus police or local police agencies. Many colleges and universities are doing this right: they have procedures in place to deal with domestic partner violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking; they provide support to victims, and they have prevention programs to educate the community about these terrible acts. In another case in Pennsylvania this year, a student at Kutztown University told authorities that she had been raped on campus by a male student. After this young woman reported the assault, a second female student came out and said that she had been raped a few weeks earlier. These two instances of young women standing up and reporting their assaults pulled others out of the shadows. Another two female students went to authorities with reports of sexual assault. All four women knew their attackers. In response to the rape and sexual assault reports, the university put a notice on their Web site and sent e-mails to students, faculty, and staff about the occurrences. Kutztown University and Dickinson College have taken concrete steps to improve their responses, but much remains to be done. Congress cannot legislate a campus culture, but we can pass legislation to help institute the processes and procedures that will educate students in order to prevent intimate partner violence and provide support for victims who do come forward, which will encourage other victims to speak up and seek help. Colleges and universities must do everything possible to protect students from violence and provide information about students' rights and the resources available to help them. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act so that our children can go to college without fear and those who violate campus policies relating to intimate partner violence will be held accountable for their actions.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, today I wish to honor Father William Hultberg, a very special priest from my home State of Pennsylvania. Known to many simply as ``Father Bill,'' he is a member of the Oblates of St. Francis DeSales and has provided both his country and his Pennsylvania community with a lifetime of service as a spiritual and religious counselor. Saturday, July 16, 2011, will mark his 80th birthday. To those who know him, Father Bill is a man whose commitment to spirituality, concern for his fellow man, and sense of service is virtually unparalleled. After earning his bachelor's degree in education and Spanish from LaSalle University and his master's degree in education and guidance from Niagara University, Father Bill began his lifelong commitment to country and community with his chaplain service in both the U.S. Army and U.S. Navy. He retired as a lieutenant colonel in 1991 after 35 years of exemplary service. During his time as a Navy Chaplain with the Marines, he received the Bronze Star Medal with a ``Combat V'' for valor. As an Active-Duty chaplain with the U.S. Army, he was awarded four Meritorious Service Medals for his efforts in developing and implementing alcohol and drug prevention programs for servicemembers. Father Bill's commitment to providing spiritual and religious counseling to those suffering from alcohol and drug addictions continues to this day. As a certified pastoral and drug addiction counselor at Caron Treatment Center in Wernersville, PA, Father Bill has offered spiritual guidance and an understanding of the 12-step spirituality of recovery to addicts and their families. His efforts over his 24 years of service to Caron have been central in providing those who suffer from addiction with the necessary tools to achieve sobriety and have truly left their mark on the Caron community. To this point, his unique Sunday services have become an honored, albeit mandatory, tradition at Caron. Described by some as an ``evangelical rally,'' Father Bill integrates 12-step traditions, elements of Christian worship, and other material at these services to provide opportunities for those in recovery and their families to share their pain and hope with one another as they struggle with addiction. Throughout his career, Father Bill has also been a beacon of hope to those suffering from HIV/AIDS. His development and implementation of a spiritual program for those afflicted with the disease and his contribution to Caron's HIV retreat weekends have provided comfort and guidance to many. Not only have these efforts had an immeasurable impact in Pennsylvania, but they have also garnered Father Bill national recognition in the form of the Ryan White Youth Service Award, a national awards program recognizing leaders for reaching out to support youth in the prevention of HIV. I would like to join the Caron Treatment Center's community in wishing Father Bill a very happy 80th birthday this weekend and to thank him for his lifetime of service to both the Commonwealth and the country. I, and many others, wish him many more years of health and happiness as he celebrates this milestone.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Senate's upcoming trade agenda and its impact on Pennsylvania workers and Pennsylvania jobs. Like so many of our States, Pennsylvania has always played a critically important role in America's manufacturing and commercial heritage. The coal and waterways of our State helped make the Commonwealth legendary for steelmaking and helped turn the United States into an industrial powerhouse. During its heyday, 60 percent of the domestic steel production in the United States came from Pennsylvania. During World War II, almost one-third of the Nation's steel came from Pennsylvania, which was a full 20 percent of global production at the time. The then-Governor of Pennsylvania, Arthur James, put it this way: ``Pennsylvania was truly the arsenal of democracy and the arsenal of America.'' Given its dominance in the steel industry, it is no surprise that the Commonwealth was sixth in the Nation in total war production during the Second World War, leading in shipbuilding and munitions production. More money was spent to expand production capacity in Pennsylvania than in any other State during the war. We know at the time it did not stop there. It did not stop at the end of the war. After the war was over, these manufacturing facilities were used to make American products and fuel the growth of a thriving middle class. Today, so many of these plants have gone away, due in part to our failed trade policies. Over the last 30 years, we have seen trade deficits soar, currency manipulation go unchecked, lavish subsidies by foreign governments go ignored, and exploitation of workers in other countries overlooked. That is why I am very concerned that today the Finance Committee is moving forward the pending agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. For the last several weeks, the Presiding Officer, Senator Brown, and I have persistently asked the tough, critical questions about the impact of these agreements before they are considered. A review of the impact of past trade agreements offers very little comfort. In 1994, Congress passed the North American Free Trade Agreement. We know it as NAFTA. Since NAFTA's passage, U.S. Trade policies have steadily chipped away at Pennsylvania's manufacturing base. It is a critical sector for our State and so many others. According to a recent study--and the chart on my left depicts it--from the Industrial Resource Centers, from 1997 to 2010, just 13 years, manufacturing went from 16.4 percent of our gross State product to 12.1 percent, a remarkable drop in just 13 years. What does that mean for the total number of jobs? In total, Pennsylvania lost nearly 300,000 manufacturing jobs. You can see it from the chart, starting in 1997, the drop to 12.1 percent in just those 13 years--300,000 jobs in 13 years. Despite these alarming numbers and statistics, advocates for the trade deals, including the pending agreement with South Korea, promised significant economic benefits from exploding export potential to job creation. Proponents argue a significant net positive from these agreements every time they are considered. In reality, instead of creating opportunities for Pennsylvania, our trade policies did little more than offshore good-paying jobs, while giving our trading partners unlimited access to our markets. So we must take the time now to ask the tough questions. Specifically, as a Senator from Pennsylvania, I must ask three basic questions about any trade deal. No. 1, will the agreement protect current Pennsylvania jobs and create new jobs in Pennsylvania and across America? No. 2, will the agreement help create a level playing field for American businesses and workers? No. 3, does the agreement provide new opportunities for American manufacturers to export? I will focus on the South Korean Free Trade Agreement in the context of each question. First, will the agreement protect and create jobs in Pennsylvania and across the Nation? In these uncertain times, job creation must be our top priority. In Pennsylvania, the manufacturing sector is critical. Manufacturing remains the Commonwealth's largest source of good-paying jobs, with chemical primary metal products, fabricated metal products, food products, and machinery making up the top five manufacturing sectors supporting Pennsylvania families. These benefits extend beyond individual manufacturing businesses in our State--in fact, the economic benefits of a strong manufacturing sector experienced throughout Pennsylvania's economy. According to research commissioned by the Pennsylvania Industrial Resource Centers, every $1 increase in demand for products manufactured in our State leads to an increase in growth value of $2.52 across all industries. So one buck in activity can lead to $2.52 in value. The manufacturing jobs that are created support middle-income families, and the creation of those jobs and the support they provided for those families in 2008 meant the following: The average annual compensation of a worker in the manufacturing sector was over $65,000. The average pay for the rest of the workforce was $10,000 less. Each good-paying job in this country allows for more money to flow back into the economy. Given the importance of manufacturing jobs in Pennsylvania, we must ask ourselves: Will the Korea trade agreement create jobs, especially in the manufacturing sector? I believe it will not create a substantial number of new jobs in this critical sector. Looking back over the last 20 years, trade-related job expansion has been an unfulfilled promise for Pennsylvania and the Nation. We need to look no further than NAFTA. In 1993, when the agreement was signed, NAFTA promised to deliver hundreds of thousands of jobs across the United States. Leading economists at the time projected NAFTA would bring 170,000 new jobs in the near term alone. These gains were not realized. Instead, since NAFTA was signed into law through 2002, 525,094 workers were certified as displaced under NAFTA, according to the Department of Labor. I am sure that number has grown since that 2002 data point. Furthermore, when NAFTA was negotiated, leaders suggested that American exports would expand greatly to meet the new- found demands of the open Mexican market with all its new customers. The opposite has occurred. In 1993, the United States had a small trade surplus. We had a surplus with Mexico. According to the official Census Bureau statistics, by 2010, 17 years later, we were running a trade deficit with Mexico of $66.4 billion. So a surplus in trade with Mexico became a huge deficit. Trade with Canada also saw a widening trade deficit from $10 billion in 1993 to $28 billion in 2010. So there a deficit got bigger; whereas, in the case of Mexico, it went from a surplus to a massive deficit of $66 billion. The impact of these policies is plainly seen in employment data. Pennsylvania has seen a dramatic decline in manufacturing employment since NAFTA was implemented, losing a total of over 300,000 jobs. With this rosy prediction of NAFTA in mind, a close look at the government's projections of the South Korea agreement should be viewed with great skepticism. While the International Trade Commission predicts our bilateral trade with Korea will improve, the total U.S. trade deficit is predicted to get larger. While proponents of the agreement argue U.S. exports to Korea will increase, they are neglecting to tell the whole truth. Companies will simply shift from exporting to Korea, to creating current customers in other places, rather than increasing total exports. The second question I ask is, Will this agreement help create a level playing field after enactment? I believe this agreement, South Korea agreement, will fail to create a level playing field for our workers and our companies. Modern trade agreements do more than cut tariffs. These agreements contain hundreds of provisions that make substantial changes to nontrade policies, and the Korea agreement is no exception. According to the group Public Citizen, these nontrade provisions limit the authority granted to elected representatives of the American people over product and food safety, financial regulations, health care and energy regulations, patent terms, and even our tax dollars that can be spent by the government. The agreement allows Korean exporters to take investment disputes out of courts and into unaccountable and secretive international tribunals through a process known as investor-to-state dispute system that is similar to NAFTA. Additionally, the investment chapters were signed prior to the current financial crisis back in 2007. These specific chapters include rules that prohibit either country from imposing firewalls between the sorts of financial services one firm may offer to limit the spread of risk, for example. Important protections put in place after the financial crisis of 2007 and 2008 could potentially be challenged under the pending agreement. Even more troubling is the issue of Korea's currency. South Korean currency manipulation remains an unaddressed problem. As we have seen in China, an intentionally weakened currency leads to a fundamentally unbalanced trade relationship and brutal conditions for U.S. companies. In a June 17 report, the Economic Policy Institute calculated that if Asian currencies were strengthened to appropriate market-determined levels, if that were done, U.S. gross domestic product would increase by as much as $285.7 billion or 1.9 percent, creating up to 2.25 million U.S. jobs; that is, if Asian currencies were strengthened to those appropriate levels. Unfortunately, as with other NAFTA-style free-trade agreements, this South Korea agreement is silent on currency. This is unacceptable because South Korea devalued their currency twice, once in 1988, once in 1998. Both interventions devalued their currency by 50 percent or more. South Korea was one of the first countries cited as a currency manipulator by the Treasury Department in 1988. South Korea continues their long history of manipulating their currency. In fact, the most recent Treasury report to Congress on international economic and exchange rate policies, from May 27, 2011, noted that South Korea intervened ``heavily'' in its currency market during the financial crisis and has continued uninterrupted since. Treasury urged South Korea to ``adopt a greater degree of exchange rate flexibility and less intervention.'' Currency policy has played a central role in China's mercantilist trade policies and has cost the United States thousands of jobs. We should not be cutting tariffs for the country, with South Korea's heavy history on currency manipulation, without language to deal with protecting us in a competitive environment in the devaluations that they have undertaken before. Additionally, several groups raised the possibility that the agreement could be used to weaken U.S. trade laws. The free trade agreement creates a bilateral commission on trade laws. While our Trade Representative argues that this will not change any existing U.S. trade laws, this avenue could be used by advocates of weaker enforcement in the future. Finally, I turn to the last question. Does the agreement provide new opportunities for Pennsylvania manufacturers to export their goods? Similar to NAFTA, the benefits of the South Korea deal have been, in my judgment, overstated, while the risks have been largely ignored. Rather than opening a new market for Pennsylvania farmers and manufacturers, I am concerned that the benefits to the United States are minimal, at best. There are specific reasons this deal fails to deliver for Pennsylvania exporters. First, most of the benefits are based on an overly optimistic projection for agriculture. These projections, compiled by supporters of the agreement, assume that a cut in tariffs will immediately equal a growth in market share. We know from past experience that Asian markets, including South Korea, have come up with a host of unjustified nontariff restrictions to keep U.S. beef out of their country. These barriers to free trade are likely to limit export potential and are largely unaddressed in the agreement. There are other troubling clauses dealing with the beef industry. The South Korea agreement will allow American beef packagers to use Canadian or Mexican cattle and then export the packaged Mexican or Canadian beef as ``American'' beef. This policy, while great for beef packagers, undercuts the U.S. ranchers. Given our difficulties in gaining a foothold in these markets, we should rely solely on U.S. cattle, which we know are safe. Second, one of Pennsylvania's most important sectors--dairy--the competing European Union Free Trade Agreement with South Korea could inhibit our ability to compete in the South Korean market. The text of the European Union agreement specifies that certain types of cheese, including mozzarella, must come from specific regions. As a result, European exporters could challenge U.S. producers selling cheese in South Korea as ``mozzarella'' or ``parmesan.'' In this sense, the Europeans have negotiated a better agreement, giving European companies an advantage over American companies. Another problem with the agreement is which goods qualify for the ``Made in South Korea'' designation--the sticker, so to speak--and are allowed to, therefore, enter the United States duty free. Under the rules of origin in annex 6-A of the agreement, 65 percent of the value of many goods, including automobiles shipped duty free to the United States can come from South Korea and still be considered ``Made in South Korea.'' This standard is lower than the European Union agreement. The European Union agreement has a 55-percent content standard where content can be foreign and, once again, places our companies at a comparative disadvantage in international competition. Just as the chart depicts, 35 percent Korea plus 65 percent China will equal ``Made in Korea.'' I don't think that is what the American people bargain for when they expect us to get trade policies right. In a sense, this opens the door--a back door--for products primarily made in places such as North Korea or China to enter the United States of America duty free. That is wrong. It should be changed. We should not broker an agreement that has that in it. Let me conclude with the three questions I started with. First, will the agreement create a substantial number of new jobs? I am concerned it will not. In previous agreements such as NAFTA, if they are any indication, the U.S.-Korea agreement will lead to job losses, especially in the critical manufacturing sector. Second, will the agreement help create a level playing field? It will not. The agreement fails to address critical issues such as currency manipulation that have already hurt American businesses and cost us jobs. Third, does the agreement provide new opportunities for American manufacturers to export? Proponents have overstated the benefits. Certainly industries and firms are likely to benefit, while many others will not. What is clear is that in its failure to address nontariff barriers to trade, the agreement leaves American firms unprotected and on a playing field that is not level. Instead of moving ahead with a broken model, we need to focus on the bigger picture--formulating a strategy that helps American manufacturers, that leads to job creation to help middle-income families, helping us create the jobs of the future. To make real sustained progress, Washington needs to have a plan, a strategy. We must develop and commit ourselves to a national manufacturing strategy that includes job-creating trade policies as well. Recently I convened a roundtable in Pennsylvania with leaders of several southwestern Pennsylvania companies at the Universal Electric Corporation in Canonsburg, Washington County, to listen to their ideas and bring them to Washington, DC, to keep a focus on supporting manufacturing. I heard a number of common themes. First of all, we should develop a national strategy, as I mentioned, for manufacturing. Second, we should make the R&D tax credit permanent. Third, we should crack down--really crack down--on China's currency manipulation and other unfair trade policies so that Pennsylvania companies and their workers have at least a fair shot. Legislation I recently introduced gives us those tools to hold countries accountable for manipulating currencies. We also need to extend trade adjustment assistance to help workers who have lost their jobs to overseas unfair foreign competition so they can build new skills and find new employment. Finally, we need to invest in science, technology, engineering, and math, the so-called STEM discipline, which we know will create many jobs in the future. Manufacturing is the heart and soul of Pennsylvania and our Nation's economy. Our future depends on developing policies that help our workers and our businesses compete in the global production of goods. Our workers and our businesses can outcompete anyone in the world--any country in the world. We just need to give them a fair shot. We need to give them a strategy. These agreements don't do that. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

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 for up to 10 minutes each.