Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

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 I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Basically, in this article we have a news organization-- among many--that is saying donor names are being kept secret. The other problem we have, of course, is foreign nationals are coming into the United States and spending money to influence elections. So this is not complicated. It is very simple. Either there is going to be sunlight and exposure about our elections and who is funding these various elections or we are just going to have darkness. I think that injures our ability to have free debate in a campaign, and it injures the voter's ability to learn what they expect and should have a right to know about candidates and about those who are influencing candidates. Madam President, we should pass the DISCLOSE Act. At a minimum, we should have a debate on the DISCLOSE Act. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise to speak about the same topic about which the senior Senator from Vermont just spoke. We are grateful for his leadership on so many issues but especially those that involve the Judiciary Committee, the committee of which he has been chairman. He has been a great example. I will not try to repeat or replicate his message but to reinforce what Senator Leahy and others have said already in this debate. For people who do not follow campaigns day to day or even week to week--a lot of people are making a living and struggling through a tough economy, so they are not always engaged in day-to-day politics. Generally, the way it works in this country, whether it is a State such as Pennsylvania, New York or Vermont or any State in the Union, for the most part, with some exceptions, we have candidates who declare their candidacy for office. They have to file paperwork. They have to fill out ethics forms and provide other disclosures as a candidate. Then candidates, as they are running and raising money, have to make reports about their donors. That happens all the time in State races and in Federal races where someone gives you a contribution of any size, that has to be reported. Some States might have a cutoff below a certain dollar amount. If you are running in an election and someone gives you a contribution of $25,000 or $100,000, people ought to know about that. They ought to know who is funding your campaign. Even in the Federal system, we have limits on contributions. But while a candidate is running, they file reports that tell the voters who is supporting them. It is a basic foundational principle of the way we run elections. Now we are faced with a situation, because of the Citizens United case, where those basic rules about how candidates are influenced or impacted by contributions, what corporations and entities do in an election--all that is turned on its head. Basically, what this Supreme Court decision means is, you can have a corporate entity--I am not sure there is anyone in America who does not think corporations already have too much influence. Let's set that aside. They have plenty of influence in elections. Right now any corporation at any time can spend any amount of money they want. We do not have any information, unless the law is changed, about their donors, who is paying for that influence, who is paying for those advertisements. The corporate entity does not even have to identify itself. They can call themselves the XYZ company or XYZ campaign and come in and run ads positively or negatively, for or against, candidates in an unlimited way. It violates the basic rule we have all operated under, which is: Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If you want to bring some light to the darkness, especially the darkness that will envelop a lot of campaigns, then I guess you would be in favor of not having a statute passed such as the DISCLOSE Act. It is very simple. Others have gone through it, so I will not walk through every provision, but one of the first provisions is mandating expanded disclosure and disclaimer requirements for certain communications by corporations, unions, and certain tax-exempt organizations. What is wrong with that? Why shouldn't we have that? For the most part, we have had that for years. Now we don't have that due to the Supreme Court decision. So we should make sure that is the law again. Second, the legislation would require covered organizations to report information about their donors and spending for certain independent expenditures and electioneering communications. Why shouldn't someone voting in 2010, or in any year, have information about the entity that is spending the money, and especially the donors supporting that entity. It is a free country. They can exercise their right to free speech, but the idea that it has to be shrouded in darkness and secrecy----

Mr. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.

Mr. CASEY. I thank the Chair. And, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a New York Times article of September 20, 2010, entitled ``Donor Names Remain Secret as Rules Shift.''

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, today, passage of essential legislation to support job-creating business investment was relegated to callous political brinkmanship. For months, funding for the biodiesel and the research and development, R & D, tax credits have been stalled due to Republican opposition. Just in June, I voted three times to fund the credits--on the 17th, again on the 24th, and finally on the 30th. Each time, every Republican voted against the bill that contained these and other essential extensions. Then today, as we neared completion of another essential piece of legislation, the small business jobs bill, motions regarding biodiesel and R & D were presented by Senators Grassley and Hatch as a way to slow down progress on the legislation at hand. Let me be clear--we must extend these credits. R & D credits have long been viewed as lifeblood for American innovation and job creation. While less known, the biodiesel credits also provide essential economic assistance to clean energy small businesses. Without a doubt businesses suffer due to our inability to work together. A business in Erie, PA, illustrates this point. Hero BX has struggled this year to keep its production facility open without the biodiesel credit, putting 40 jobs on the line. I want to provide Hero BX and other businesses across the Commonwealth and beyond with the tools needed to compete and survive. Senator Baucus has reintroduced the tax extender package, including the R & D and biodiesel credits. I encourage all of my colleagues to support the bill. This is not about allowing a victory in an election year. Passage is about providing companies the incentives to keep and create jobs.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this evening to speak about the bill we passed today, what is known as the child nutrition bill, but the actual title is the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. We passed it by unanimous consent, which means we have done something that happens all too rarely around here. We passed a major piece of legislation in a bipartisan way, we got consent from the whole Chamber, and we did not have to have a vote on it. That is a good development, to pass a big piece of legislation which will have a tremendously positive impact on our children, and passing it in that manner is encouraging. I am grateful, as so many of us are, to our chairman, Senator Lincoln, for her continued leadership to craft a child nutrition bill that protects and assists the most vulnerable of our society--pregnant women and children who are food insecure, especially in a time of economic difficulties for so many families and high unemployment in so many communities across the country. In the Scriptures, they tell us that a faithful friend is a sturdy shelter, and he or she who has found a faithful friend has indeed found a treasure. I am paraphrasing a little bit, but I think that line from the Scriptures about a faithful friend being a sturdy shelter has application to this discussion we have had about the Child Nutrition Act and helping our children because so many elected officials around the country say they are a friend of children. That is a good sentiment. We like to hear that. But often we do not have the opportunity to demonstrate our friendship, our concern for children, and sometimes we don't take the opportunity even when it is presented to us. So in our efforts to show and demonstrate--sometimes in small ways, sometimes in more substantial ways here in the Senate or in other instances as well--we have a chance to demonstrate, to prove or to provide some proof that we are trying to be a friend to children. The bill itself reauthorizes our Nation's major Federal child nutrition programs which are administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. As many people who watch these proceedings know, reauthorization means we want to do it again, we want to continue a policy and keep the policy moving in the right direction and fund it. Under this program, the following are included: the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program; the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, known by the end of that program's name, WIC--women, infants, and children; the Child and Adult Care Food Program, which is not something we hear a lot about but is critically important; and the Summer Food Service Program. The act itself--the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010--provides $4.5 billion in additional funding over the next 10 years, nearly 10 times the amount of money provided for the previous child nutrition bill and the largest new investment in child nutrition programs since the inception of these particular programs. This historic new investment provided by the act could not come at a more important time, particularly given the incidence of hunger and the corresponding need for Federal nutrition assistance, which has increased in recent years. We know the economic realities. The numbers do not begin to tell the story, but the numbers are part of the story. Throughout the country, more than 15 million people are out of work. In Pennsylvania, for example, a 9.2-percent unemployment rate equates to 591,000 Pennsylvanians out of work. I know some States are at 10 percent unemployment and 11 percent and 12 percent and some even over 13 percent. But in our State, having more than 591,000 people out of work is close to if not a record number of people. I have always believed that when it comes to programs and policies that impact our children, whether it is a nutrition program or an education program, whether it is helping to protect our kids, I have always believed that what motivates us and what motivates people across this country to take steps to help children is a basic and fundamental belief that every child in America is born with a light inside them. Some children, because of their circumstances, because of the family they are born into or because of other reasons, do not need a lot of help, and their light shines so brightly, it is blinding, it is boundless, it is assimilating--you can fill in lots of other words. Some children are born with a light inside them, but it does not burn as brightly because of limitations or because of adverse circumstances they are born into or because the family they are born into does not have some of the advantages many of us have had. They do not have a steady job. They do not have income. They do not have the ability to provide for their family. I have always believed that it is the obligation of every public official, whether you are in the Senate or whether you are a State official or local official, but especially if you are elected, to do everything you can, to take every opportunity you can to help our children at a minimum with at least four things: nutrition and the prevention of hunger, early education, health care, and certainly basic safety and protection. This legislation takes a substantial step forward in at least one of those areas--the area I mentioned as it relates to preventing hunger and making sure kids are being given nutritious meals. We know providing care at the beginning of a child's life is so important. That starts with that child's mother. Through the WIC Program, pregnant women and new mothers have access to nutritious foods and learn more about healthy eating--something we could all learn a thing or two about. The program encourages breastfeeding and supplies formula, food packages, and farmers market vouchers. The WIC Program is a strong investment in our future and serves more than half--more than half--of all infants in the United States. As babies grow into toddlers, they benefit from the nutritious meals and snacks provided by childcare homes and centers and Head Start Programs participating in that program. I mentioned before that we don't hear a lot about the Child and Adult Care Food Program. That program allows children to develop, it prepares children to enter school ready to learn, and it helps working families to work. In the vast majority of States, the Child and Adult Care Food Program--the afterschool program that it is--only provides reimbursement for a snack. The bill we passed today gives communities in all 50 States the ability to be reimbursed for a meal. When toddlers grow into young children and arrive for their first day of school, many are able to enter the cafeteria and eat a healthy meal for breakfast and for lunch. These meals fuel them with the energy they need to grow into healthy adults. We know the numbers on these for children are so substantial. More than 10 million children receive a free or reduced-priced breakfast, and nearly 20 million children in the United States receive a lunch. In Pennsylvania, that translates into 1 million kids having the benefit of school lunch and just about a quarter of a million children getting the benefit of the School Breakfast Program. Congress has taken a step now--at least the Senate has today--to ensure more eligible children receive meals, increasing the number of eligible children and increasing the nutritional value of meals. Hungry and malnourished children cannot fully participate in school. If a child can't, during school, have the benefit of a school lunch or a school breakfast or sometimes both, they can't learn. It is as simple as that. None of us could learn. None of us can function if we don't have enough to eat. I have always thought that if we invest in children, making sure they can learn at a very young age, they can learn more now and earn more later. We have to remain committed to these programs. I have had a very strong interest in and have advocated for a long time for the so-called universal feeding concept because I believe the experience in a major urban school district--in this case, the city of Philadelphia--in that school district, that universal feeding concept as a model in one school district has reduced the stigma of poverty and increased participation in the School Lunch Program. Philadelphia schools are reimbursed for only the number of students who qualify for free or reduced-price meals but agree to offer free meals to all children. It covers everyone; it doesn't single children out for different treatment. Universal feeding enhances efficiency by dramatically reducing the administrative burdens of the program, and it maintains the integrity and congressional intent of the National School Lunch Program. There is a lot more I could talk about with regard to the bill, but I wish to move very quickly and then conclude by highlighting some photographs. This first photograph was made available to us by a Dr. Mariane Chilton. Dr. Chilton is at Drexel University. I have met a lot of people who have been champions for our children, who have stood up for children in all circumstances, but if there is one person who I can think of in any university of the United States who has done so much for our children and has stood up for them, who has been even more than just a faithful friend--Dr. Chilton has been the person who, time and again, has reminded us about the moral gravity of making sure children are first on our list. She developed a program called Witnesses to Hunger. This particular project began after consent was given by mothers across the city of Philadelphia who agreed to participate. More than 40 of them were given a camera. They took pictures of their lives, the lives of their children, their own life, what happens in their homes. They made these pictures available. They gave us a window into their own lives by their own consent. By providing that insight, they allowed us to see the real misery of hunger for children. They allowed us to see the horrific nightmare so many children and so many families were living through, even before this recession. The first picture I have is a photograph of a young boy sitting at a table. Here is what his mother Melissa said about him: My son, he's already on the small side and he needs every bit of food that he can get to make him healthy, keep him healthy. He has failure to thrive. He has a bone deficiency that doesn't allow him to grow. He's only 30 pounds. He has acid reflux. He had RSV, failure to thrive, chronic asthma. This is one example of a child who doesn't have enough to eat, which leads to the obvious health problems that entails. This next picture is a photograph of three children sitting at a table. They have beautiful smiles. They are wonderful children. The title of this picture is ``Oodles of noodles.'' These children are eating lots and lots of noodles. Their mother says: And the kids know my food stamps got cut off. Because when they came home from school today, they didn't have their snacks. So they know that I didn't go to the market. I really didn't tell them why or anything like that, because I don't think they understand. But it affected them. When people make decisions about cutting programs or voting against programs, we know they have real consequences. The last picture is a young boy holding bananas and giving the photographer a great smile. In this photo, Gale, his mother, captures her son's happiness as he holds up a bunch of bananas. Some people tell us people choose to eat unhealthy foods. They use that as a rationale, a pathetic and insulting rationale. But sometimes they make that argument. We know families want more access to fresh fruits and vegetables. But, frankly, in a lot of inner cities, they are not available, not at all. We have to recognize that, rather than denigrate or judge people who live in those communities. There are plenty of folks in Washington who are good at judging. They are not real good at responding to the needs of people. There is so much in this bill. I will not go through more of it because we don't have time. I believe this bill does meet that basic obligation to do everything we can, at least in this program, at least with this opportunity, to make sure that light inside every child burns as brightly as the full measure of that child's potential, as brightly as we can possibly allow it to burn with our help. I believe this bill does one thing as well, going back to that reference to Scripture about a faithful friend being a sturdy shelter. This bill will not solve all the problems of the families who will be positively impacted. It will not eliminate hunger. It will not rescue a child from so many challenges in the life of a child who lives in a poor family. But this bill is one example of one way we can demonstrate what that scriptural reference tells us. It gives us a chance to demonstrate in a significant way that we are trying to do all we can to be that faithful friend to our children and to provide some measure of shelter when the storms of this recession hit that family and hit that child. We can take a step in proving that we are trying to be that faithful friend to children. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Direct Care Workforce Empowerment Act. Next year the baby boom generation will start turning 65 and by 2030, all 78 million will have reached that age. We must ensure this generation that fought in our wars, worked in our factories, taught our children and who gave us life and love are cared for. This will require an investment in the health care workforce that was begun under health care reform and must continue into the coming decades. It is the direct care worker that provides most of this care to our loved ones. Unfortunately, they are often not given the respect they deserve for the work they do. Direct care workers help more than 250,000 Pennsylvanians and their families every day. This is also one of the fastest growing professions, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It is now our responsibility to make sure these jobs, while often personally rewarding, provide opportunity for advancement and economic stability for the workers. This bill will do three key things. The bill will ensure that home care workers receive the Federal minimum wage and overtime protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act; improve Federal and State data collection and oversight with respect to the direct care workforce; and establish a grant program to help states improve direct care worker recruitment, retention, and training. I hope my colleagues join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Direct Care Workforce Empowerment Act. Next year the baby boom generation will start turning 65 and by 2030, all 78 million will have reached that age. We must ensure this generation that fought in our wars, worked in our factories, taught our children and who gave us life and love are cared for. This will require an investment in the health care workforce that was begun under health care reform and must continue into the coming decades. It is the direct care worker that provides most of this care to our loved ones. Unfortunately, they are often not given the respect they deserve for the work they do. Direct care workers help more than 250,000 Pennsylvanians and their families every day. This is also one of the fastest growing professions, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It is now our responsibility to make sure these jobs, while often personally rewarding, provide opportunity for advancement and economic stability for the workers. This bill will do three key things. The bill will ensure that home care workers receive the Federal minimum wage and overtime protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act; improve Federal and State data collection and oversight with respect to the direct care workforce; and establish a grant program to help states improve direct care worker recruitment, retention, and training. I hope my colleagues join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise tonight to speak about a topic we speak to on a regular basis, but, frankly, we don't speak about it enough in terms of the priority we should place upon it. That, of course, is the issue and the priority we place upon the children of America. We talk, as we often do in Washington, about how important our children are, but we don't speak about or act in a concerted effort to address some of the most urgent needs of our children, especially in a time of recession. Fortunately, we are recovering. We have a very high unemployment rate. We have 15 million Americans out of work. In my home State of Pennsylvania, there are more than 591,000 people out of work. But we are recovering. Within a recession, in a time of horrific nightmare, really, for a lot of families, the ones who pay the price in a very severe and substantial way are the children of America. We speak tonight about how they are getting through this recession, how we get them through the shadows of this recession so that we can do everything we can to make sure they are healthy, safe, and ready to learn. I believe--and I think this is true of most Americans--that every child born in America is born with a light inside them. For some children, because of their circumstances--their family background or other advantages they have--that light inside them is boundless, blinding. You can't even see the reach of it. They have all of the gifts and all of the ability anyone would want, all of the advantages anyone would want. For other children, that light is more limited, more circumscribed. It is limited through no fault of their own, through no fault of that child. When that is the case, as is the case for many American children, it is the duty of every public official--every Federal official, every State official, every county and local official--to use every opportunity they have--and some have more opportunity and more power to impact our children than others, but whatever opportunity you have as a public official, you have an obligation to do everything you can to help children along the way. Whether you are in office for 1 year or 1 month or 10 years or 20 years or longer, every public official has an abiding obligation--I think it is actually a sacred duty--to do everything possible to ensure that the light inside every child burns as brightly as the reach of its potential.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, first of all, just in case our chair of the Small Business Committee, Senator Landrieu has to leave, I wish to reiterate what a number of us have not only felt but have even spoken about over the last couple days, in light of her work on this legislation. She has been, in a word, tireless and fearless, for one reason: Because she, like so many of us, but I think in a very special way she understands what so many of these small business owners have told her and told a lot of us, that they need help and they need it now. They do not want to hear about a political debate, they want action and they want us to pass this legislation. She has worked so hard on the substance. She has worked so hard on the work that you have to do in the Senate to get an agreement, to get a bipartisan agreement, to make this a bill that has no impact on the deficit. So whether its fiscal responsibility, whether it is the substantive provisions that help small businesses from Louisiana to California and back all across our country in places such as Pennsylvania that I represent, she has done that work. I think the people of this country know that. I think it is very important that even when we thanked her once, we need to repeat ourselves because she has done great work. I think we should follow her lead. We should not have the kind of political debate we are having. She and others have worked out a very good agreement, and I think they are on their way to doing that again. We are so grateful for her leadership and for her tireless efforts to get this passed because this is a bill that, in the end, is about not just the rhetoric, as we often have in Washington about small business, but having substantive provisions that will cut taxes for small business. It will enhance existing small business loan programs that work. All the criticism we hear sometimes about programs that do not work, there are loan programs that are working and just need another bump, just need a bit of help. Finally, establishing a new Small Business Lending Fund and all this without adding to the deficit. Let me take them one at a time. First of all, tax breaks: Over $12 billion in tax cuts going back to taxpayers. Here are just a couple examples: To encourage investment in small businesses, the bill will increase the capital gains exclusion from 50 percent up to 100 percent of the gain through the sale of small business stock. This provision will provide a greater incentive to invest in small businesses and will spur job creation. This is a bill that is about jobs, about creating lots of jobs in the near term. The bill will encourage small businesses to invest in their companies, which is what a lot of owners tell us. They say: I want to create jobs. I want to expand. But they don't have the capital or the help to do so. It will do that by expanding a business's ability to write off the cost of certain real property that is purchased for the use of the business. We know the section 179 program in the Tax Code helps us do that. To further encourage Americans to start their own small businesses, the bill will double the deduction for startup expenditures. Let me move to another element: the need for capital for small businesses in a State such as Pennsylvania and around the country. We have heard this over and over. Month after month, you walk up to someone and you say: How are we doing? Sometimes you get good news, sometimes bad news. One resounding and consistent message we have heard: We are glad you passed the Recovery Act; we are glad you passed the HIRE Act; but I still don't see enough help for small business. Finally, we have a piece of legislation which is targeted at the engine of the economy--small businesses and the people who are creating the jobs: small business owners. These owners all across the country, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, have made that point to us over and over. They want to expand, but they don't have access to capital to do it. The changes in this bill, which is budget neutral, will increase small business lending by $5 billion in the next year. That will create or save over 200,000 jobs. In the end, it is a jobs bill. It is not only a bill about programs, it is a bill that will create jobs. First, the bill will increase the limits of the 7(a) loans from $2 million to $5 million. We have heard about that provision. Just to give a sense of what that means for Pennsylvania, in the last roughly 18 months or less, from February of 2009 to June of this year, the SBA administered over 1,700 7(a) loans in Pennsylvania. The changes in this bill should allow for many more. We have 67 counties in our State. You can imagine the impact county by county when you have more than 1,700 loans on an existing program just in less than 18 months. If anything, this bill will exponentially increase the number of those loans. So next year or the year after, when we are reporting on this, if we complete work on this and get it passed, instead of 1,700 loans in Pennsylvania to small business owners, maybe it will be 2,500 or 3,000 or much higher. I come from a State which most people think of as big cities such as Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. But there are so many places in Pennsylvania where we have a very small town or even a rural population. We don't have a lot of big buildings, a lot of big cities. We have a lot of small business owners fighting every day to make ends meet, to borrow a little bit more money to keep going, literally living week to week and month to month. These kinds of loans can have a direct and positive impact, a disproportionately positive impact on those kinds of businesses in small towns and rural areas of Pennsylvania and across the country. The bill will also increase the loan limits of microlenders who provide short-term working capital to small businesses from $35,000 to $50,000. That is a lot of money when you are really up against it as a small business owner and you are trying to get to the next month or the next quarter in terms of your workforce or your payroll. The bill will increase the limit of 504 loans from $1.5 million to $5.5 million. We know the purpose of the 504 Loan Program--to provide financing for acquisition and renovation of capital assets. Let me give a personal example: Kate Berger of North Huntington in Westmoreland County, near Pittsburgh, a big county that has a lot of smaller communities. The Presiding Officer knows counties such as that from his State of West Virginia. There are a lot of parallels in terms of the population and demographics. Kate Berger received a 504 loan to help grow her business. She is a former accountant and owner of JB's Bright Beginnings. She entered into the childcare business when her own childcare needs for her two children were not being met. Here is someone who had a challenge in her own life, and she decided to deal with it by starting a small business. The center she sent her children to was closing. She purchased equipment, hired staff, and went back to school for additional training in early childhood education. She was doing all the right things, everything anyone could ask of her to create a new business. She began running her business out of a very small facility. When the opportunity to purchase a larger facility--a former elementary school-- arose, she jumped at it, as a very capable small business owner would. With the help of the 504 Loan Program, Kate was able to purchase the space, with room for expanded services and 8 acres of outdoor space for the children, for her childcare center. Since moving to the new location, enrollment at JB's Bright Beginnings has increased from 66 to 104 children. Kate has hired an additional 15 employees, bringing the total number of staff to 35. That is a success story. We don't get a lot of those in the news. But for Kate Berger, the 504 Loan Program is not some theory, some concept; this is real life for her. She took a risk. She got more training and more education. She borrowed money. She took some personal risk to do this. She is now increasing the number of children served and hiring 15 more people. Finally, the bill will provide an opportunity to create the Small Business Lending Fund, a critical component of this bill, the creation of a $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund. This will provide working capital to small banks that have continued to lend during this financial crisis. Approximately 80 percent of commercial lending is done through the smallest loans at these banks. We hear that over and over again. Small bankers say: We want to provide more lending. We cannot always do it. An increase in lending by the banks will amount to a new lending and growth for small businesses. We know that by providing this opportunity to have $30 billion of lending available, this lending fund will be able to unlock $300 billion in capital for small businesses. The fund will spur lending and get credit flowing to small businesses, which is another reason to take action on this bill. An investment of $30 billion incentivizes the creation of $300 billion in capital that is leveraged. We know that when we give the private sector a little help and a kick-start here and there, they can provide a lot of extra money to increase exponentially what we can do to help small businesses. We need to pass this legislation. We need to remove the politics from this debate. We need to make sure our friends on the other side of the aisle know that when they--some of them, not all but some of them--were lecturing us month after month, saying our side of the aisle was not doing enough for small business, I would argue they were dead wrong when they made the assertion, but that was their argument. Now we have the opportunity, this rare opportunity to have a single piece of legislation that is focused on small businesses. I urge colleagues to live up to the rhetoric they have been putting forth all these many months, to stand up and vote for this bill. A vote for this bill is not a vote only for a piece of legislation. This, indeed, is a vote for small businesses. It is a vote for the people they represent in their States. Small businesses are not Democratic or Republican or Independent; they are American. It is about time people in this Chamber, who talk and talk about small business, do more than talk. It is about time for them to stand up and vote, vote the right way to help small businesses of whatever political party that small business owner happens to belong to. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a very important provision in the new Clean Energy Jobs and Oil Company Accountability Act just introduced by the majority leader which would require public disclosure of hydraulic fracturing chemicals used in natural gas drilling. The bill itself will have a number of important benefits which I will highlight before getting into the issue I rose to speak about. This legislation will create at least 150,000 jobs and save millions of consumers up to $500 annually. Second, it will hold BP accountable. A lot of Americans are waiting for that accountability. Third, it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and create up to 550,000 jobs. Next, it will protect the environment by providing full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund over the next 5 years. Finally, the bill will protect taxpayers from any future oilspills. That is the overall bill itself. I wish to speak about a provision included in the bill as it stands now. I thank the majority leader for his leadership on energy issues for many years but especially, as our leader, for his work on efforts to combat global warming, pollution, and certainly for his leadership in putting together this new piece of legislation. I thank him for including important language in the bill as it relates to natural gas drilling in places such as Pennsylvania. The language in the bill amends the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, which was designed to help local communities protect health, safety, and the environment from chemical hazards. It would require well operators to disclose to the State and the public a list of the chemicals used in each hydraulic fracturing process, including chemical constituents but not the proprietary chemical formulas the companies are so concerned about. This bill also includes the chemical abstract service registry numbers and material safety data sheets. If a State does not have a disclosure program in effect, the disclosure would be made to the public itself. This provision would also require disclosure of a proprietary formula or chemical constituents to a treating physician or nurse in an emergency situation. That is a narrow exception to the general disclosure rule. This is about something that is critically important to the people of Pennsylvania and people across the country. In order to extract the gas from the Marcellus shale which lies beneath large portions of Pennsylvania and several other States--of course, there is shale formations--the gas industry uses a process called hydraulic fracturing or, by the shorthand, fracking, as it is known colloquially, whereby about \1/2\ million or more gallons of water, sand, and chemicals, in combination, are injected at very high pressures into underground rock formations to blast them open and increase the efficiency of the wells. Each well must be fracked multiple times, really hit with that combination of sand, water and chemicals in order to release the natural gas from the shale. Then, of course, the gas is captured and can be used as an energy source. The explosive growth of natural gas wells in Pennsylvania in many incidents involving some of these wells highlights the urgent need--I think that is an understatement--for disclosure of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing. Pennsylvanians and people across the Nation have a right to know what is being injected into the ground at thousands of sites throughout the country. Fracking fluids are believed to contain toxic chemicals. These compounds are kept secret from the public as proprietary information. However, even low concentrations of toxic chemicals can have adverse health and environmental consequences. We all know the history of our Nation as it relates to the extraction of a natural resource. Pennsylvania has a history as well. We have developed our natural resources to power the region and, indeed, the Nation from the first commercial oil well, the Drake well near Titusville, PA, in the 1850s, to western Pennsylvania's production of natural gas and, of course, most notably, Pennsylvania coal. We have used that coal and other sources of energy but especially coal to provide electricity throughout the State and throughout many States in the Nation. We have been a producer of a resource which has helped to light and heat the country. Pennsylvanians are proud of that contribution. We are also proud of the way we have been able to balance the need for that resource and the benefit with what happens to our environment and our quality of life. However, before our State did the right thing in striking that balance, we did create a number of environmental legacies that we should not be proud of. Most were created in previous generations when Federal regulations that promoted responsible development did not exist. We know that history. We know it all too well. We cannot make those mistakes again in Pennsylvania or anywhere around the country when it comes to the benefit and the burden of having a resource under the ground. Natural gas has played and will continue to play an important role in our energy portfolio as we transition to a new energy future, and we are fortunate to have domestic sources to help us meet our growing needs. Pennsylvania will develop the natural gas in the Marcellus shale, and we should. But we should also make sure we develop the Marcellus shale using the best practices to protect our communities and our people. We have to get this right. The good news is that we have a lot of knowledge and information and research and technology and good-old American ingenuity and can-do spirit to get it right. Those old, false choices we used to debate all the time years ago--about choosing jobs over the environment, about choosing economic prosperity or great economic opportunity over quality of life and health and safety--are largely part of our history. But we have to make sure we get this right. It is not just underground sources of drinking water. That has been my main concern when it comes to this issue. What happens to groundwater or drinking water with all of this hydraulic fracturing going on? And the EPA, of course, is in the midst of a study. But it is not just a concern I have about underground sources of water. There have been cases where this fracking fluid--again, a combination of chemicals and sand and water and millions of gallons of it in one small area, in one geographic area--that those fracking fluids have, in fact, spilled on the ground. The language in this legislation will require that the natural gas industry provide complete disclosure of the chemical composition of hydraulic fracturing materials to ensure that if drinking water supplies, surface waters, or human health is compromised, the public and first responders will know exactly--exactly--what they are dealing with. The intent is not to stop hydraulic fracturing, and this disclosure language is not going to stop it, despite what we have heard in the last couple of days here in Washington and around the country. I would categorize some of that language, some of that hysteria from the industry as a lot of hot air and not a lot of truth. The provision that is in this bill that relates to the fracturing process simply requires well operators to disclose what chemicals they are releasing underground in our environment. What is so problematic or troubling about that? Let me read that again: requiring well operators to disclose what chemicals they are releasing underground into our environment. That is what we are talking about. We know companies, such as big soft drink companies, over many years--Coke and Pepsi--have put their ingredients on their soda cans without revealing their so-called secret formula. This is a lot more serious. This is lot more serious business. So for the life of me, I cannot understand--I really cannot, try as I might--why would oil and gas companies oppose this? What are they afraid of? If the chemical composition--the chemicals that are used in the process are not harmful or cannot compromise health and safety or contaminate drinking water or compromise groundwater or put the public at risk--if that is all OK, then why can't we shine the light of disclosure on it? What are they opposing here or the better question is, I guess, why? Why would they oppose this kind of disclosure? This is very simple--not complicated, very simple. We do this in America. When we are getting it right, we disclose information to give the public the information they should have a right to expect about what is happening underneath the ground, underneath their own homes or in their communities. This is not a well every couple of miles. There are thousands of these--thousands--across Pennsylvania and a lot more across the country. In the next year, there will be thousands more just in Pennsylvania. So I think it is a simple matter of citizens having the right to know. You have heard that expression before, that line, that commitment we have made, that value of having information--the right to know about any risks in their communities. We have had some good news lately. One major company has already announced it will voluntarily disclose hydraulic fracturing chemicals used in each of its wells on a well-by-well basis. The chairman of the company, when they made the decision, said: It's the right thing to do morally and ethically. . . . Those are not my words; those are the words of the leader of Range Resources. So if companies like that are willing to provide some disclosure--now, we have to check and double-check that disclosure is equivalent to the disclosure we are talking about here, and we will do that analysis--but if he is speaking in that way and using that language, I do not know what the others are all worried about. There is a lot of worry here by the industry. If the development of the Marcellus shale and other shale formations is carried out in a manner that fully protects the environment and human health, then I believe the economic benefits for Pennsylvania and a lot of other States can be achieved without environmental costs. So I hope we can kind of lower the rhetoric and speak forthrightly on this issue. But I will tell you, what I have heard over the last couple, 2 days or so or over the last couple of hours is really hysteria, and I think we have to make sure we do everything possible to get this right--have the economic benefits from this, the job creation potential, but make sure that when we are creating jobs and enlarging a new industry, we do not compromise the environment and we do not threaten health and safety. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this morning to talk about the United States strategy in Afghanistan. However troubling the recent leak of classified documents, the topics discussed in those documents confirm some of the difficulty we face as a country today in Afghanistan. Much of what was reported in the newspapers the last couple of days is, frankly, not news, but a review of what we already knew, that corruption continues to plague the Afghan Government, the performance of the Afghan National Army and police is uneven and at times problematic, and the Taliban have been emboldened in recent years. As I said, this is all information we knew. It might have more details about it, some more reliable than others. But the release of these documents should, at the same time, help to sharpen our focus on all of those issues and more, and ask the tough questions, as is our responsibility in the Senate in a time of war. This year, 2010, has already been the deadliest year on record in Afghanistan. We have new military leadership on the ground, General Petraeus, and assurances from the administration that civil-military relations are strong. Two weeks ago, Ambassador Holbrook appeared before the Foreign Relations Committee where he described the civilian component of our engagement in Afghanistan. Our regular reports from the administration are instructive and do indeed show that we are making progress in some areas. But the overall picture is not encouraging. Casualties are up. Fifty-three servicemembers from Pennsylvania have lost their lives in Afghanistan. And, by way of comparison, in Iraq over the course of that battle, that war and the battles that were part of it, Pennsylvania has had 196 killed in action. So when we get above 50 Pennsylvanians killed in action, that is getting very high. Of course, casualties mean both those who have been killed and those who have been wounded. So the 53 from Pennsylvania I mentioned are killed in action. We have many more who have been wounded. Our troops continue to be plagued by the threats posed by IEDs, improvised explosive devices, something I have been continually raising with the administration and others and will continue to do this until the threat to our servicemembers ends or is sharply reduced. Unfortunately, we have a problem which is not just the IED itself but the ammonium nitrate, which is the most significant ingredient, which, as everyone knows, is a fertilizer which is used across the region and in other parts of the world as well. But that ammonium nitrate is both the main and most potent ingredient, and its inflow from Pakistan is still a huge problem. We are working to address this proliferation and the transport of this deadly material in the region. We are also working closely with the Government of Pakistan to address this threat. But today I wish to review what I see as three main areas of our involvement in Afghanistan. The three we have talked about over and over here in the Senate are: security, governance, and development. First, the most significant issue for many Americans is the basic security or military question, and that part of the strategy. On last Tuesday, the international community met in Kabul to assess the progress as it relates to Afghanistan itself and the stability in Afghanistan. This was the biggest international gathering in Kabul in 40 years, 70 dignitaries from around the world, including our own Secretary of State, Secretary Clinton, and U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. Kabul itself, the city, was under virtual lockdown for the gathering, which passed without any major attacks, thank goodness. That is a testimony to the Afghan security forces. The conference attendees endorsed President Karzai's plan for Afghan security forces to take over the responsibility for safeguarding the country by 2014, setting a potential timeline for foreign troops' departure. President Karzai also said his government ``continued earnestly and with the full dedication, the pursuit of the peace process,'' with the Taliban, which has been endorsed by the international community. The United States has laid down basic requirements or conditions for any group seeking to negotiate, seeking some kind of reconciliation. There are three, and we need all three. First, any group that wants to engage in this process has to end its ties to al-Qaida; second, they have to end violence itself; and, third, accept the Afghanistan Constitution. Secretary Clinton met with a group of women in Kabul and reiterated her commitment to protecting women during this difficult transition period in Afghanistan. This issue is critical and has a direct impact on U.S. national security. Women are the backbone of Afghan society, and they play a determinative role in whether their sons resort to extremism. It is that simple. With American fighting men and women giving, as Lincoln said, their ``last full measure of devotion to their country,'' the product of our troops' sacrifice cannot be an Afghanistan that does not respect the rights of women. The Taliban cannot be allowed to impose their Draconian version of justice as it relates to women or society in general. Senator Boxer and I cochaired a Foreign Relations Subcommittee hearing on women in Afghanistan a number of months ago and will continue to strongly advocate for the rights of women in Afghanistan. We commend and applaud the work of Secretary Clinton and her Department on this issue. It is not only the right thing to do, it is literally in our national security interest to do this work. The most unfortunate indicator in the security environment, however, is the increase in American casualties, killed in action, and wounded. June was the deadliest month on record. The death toll was 103. More than half of them were American servicemembers, and from Pennsylvania four servicemembers were among those 103 killed in action. A new Afghan study also revealed that civilian casualties are on the rise. More than 1,000 Afghan civilians were killed in the first 6 months of 2010, a slight increase compared to the same period in 2009. However, the number of people killed in NATO air strikes in the same period has decreased by 50 percent because of changes in the rules of engagement. So it is good news that that number is going down. Most of the civilian deaths documented by the report were caused by insurgents, with the widespread use of roadside bombs, IEDs, as I mentioned before, particularly deadly. They alone have killed 300 civilians, those kinds of explosions. In addition to security, which is essential, of course, in any strategy to make sure there is stability in Afghanistan, the second element is once you have security or are making progress on security, you hear this talk over and over again about clear, hold, and build. You clear out the insurgents, clear out the enemy, and then you have got to hold that region or that geography, and then build on it. The building, of course, cannot take place unless there is good governance. And to say we have a lot of questions in this area is a dramatic understatement. Corruption in the Afghan Government was a major issue at this week's conference. President Karzai identified corruption as a major concern in his inaugural address, going back a number of months. We support steps he has taken to begin addressing this problem. These include issuing a Presidential decree in March of 2010 that provided that the USAID-supported High Office of Oversight have additional investigative powers. It also outlined a process we are supporting for establishing a monitoring and evaluation committee on corruption comprised of Afghan and international experts. Last week, Afghanistan's Cabinet approved a bill which will allow government ministers and senior officials accused of corruption to be put on trial. For Americans, that doesn't seem like a big development, but that alone is significant progress, to put corrupt officials on trial and have a judgment rendered pursuant thereto. Once passed by Parliament or Presidential decree, this bill will allow the creation of a special tribunal to try officials accused of graft or corruption. Under current Afghan law, ministers are immune from prosecution in ordinary courts. It is hard to understand that, but that is the situation as it stands now. American officials estimate that $14 billion a year in assistance is put through the government, but most of the current assistance package now goes through Western organizations. As the Obama administration makes an effort to increase direct assistance to the Afghan Government, safeguards must be put in place to ensure Afghans bolster their financial management systems and combat corruption. As emphasized in the administration's January Afghan strategy document, there has been a major U.S. and Afghan push to build up local governance. This approach represents an attempt to build some of the tribal and other local structures destroyed in the course of constant warfare over several decades. We have a long way to go on governance, but it bears scrutiny and attention and a lot of tough questions asked by Members of the House and Senate and getting answers to those tough questions from the administration and from President Karzai and his government. Third is the issue of development. In his testimony last week, Ambassador Holbrooke highlighted USAID's agriculture voucher program. Launched in September of 2009, this program has distributed wheat seed to more than 366,00 farmers--critically important to give farmers the resources and help to develop their crops. This strategy also resulted in the training of 80,000 Afghan farmers in best practices and employed over 70,000 Afghans on short-term rural infrastructure projects. In many places throughout Afghanistan's south, these programs are being administered increasingly under the auspices of the Afghan Ministry of Agriculture, whose extension agents receive training from forward- deployed USDA and USAID agricultural advisers. Many Americans might think the only people on the ground are soldiers and military personnel. We have a lot of dedicated Americans who work for the Department of Agriculture, for USAID, who work for a number of Federal Government agencies helping the Afghan people to develop their economy and to govern their country better. Ambassador Holbrooke also discussed our new counternarcotics strategy, which combines law enforcement, intelligence, interdiction, demand reduction, regional coordination, and alternative livelihood programs. He reports that: We have seen significant increases in: the number of drug labs destroyed; the number of drug traffickers arrested; the amounts of opium, poppy, heroin, and morphine [based-drugs] seized; the number of joint operations with Afghan forces. A joint ISAF-Embassy Kabul effort has been restoring cellular telephone service in areas where the Taliban has destroyed or deactivated cell towers. Over 20 cell towers have been reactivated in Helmand Province and Kandahar, with significant benefits for local communities. One of the civilians embedded with the Marines in Helmand Province reported that soon after a local cell tower resumed operation, ``three cell phone shops opened up in the district bizarre and SIM cards were available in the whole of the district--without involvement from the Marines or U.S. civilians.'' That is a bit of good news in the midst of a lot of difficult challenges. All of us commend the Obama administration's work to bolster civilian efforts in Afghanistan. On a mission so important, where troops and families are sacrificing so much every day, building civilian capacity can never move fast enough. However, we have tripled the amount of civilian advisers since the Obama administration assumed office in 2009. The administration has refocused development priorities on agriculture and changed the rules of engagement to ensure fewer Afghan civilians are negatively affected and turned into potential enemies. We are making progress, but much more remains to be done on the three critical measurements: security, governance, and development. I will continue to ask tough questions and demand answers on all three parts of our strategy. The American people have a right to these answers. The threat posed by IEDs in Afghanistan is the No. 1 killer. We know this from many reports. The work done by the Joint Improvised Explosive Devices Defeat Organization, known as JIEDDO, is working actively to address the threat on the ground. The State Department, led by Secretary Clinton, is engaged with governments across the region to develop a comprehensive approach on countering IEDs and having a strategy for stopping the flow of ammonium nitrate into Afghanistan from Pakistan and other places in the region, which is the central ingredient in the IEDs. I am glad this effort is taking place by our government but much more work needs to be done. We need to do everything we can to stop the attacks that result from the use of ammonium nitrate and other ingredients in the IEDs. Nothing is more important as part of our strategy. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, we are spending time today in so many ways talking about where the American people are right now with regard to this horrific economy, where we had and still have some of the worst job numbers in a long time. Fortunately, the economy is recovering. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which I voted for, and many of us did, has a positive impact along with other job creation strategies. We are happy about that. But we know we still have a way to go to fully recover. One of the best ways to ensure that those who are out of work, through no fault of their own, can get from a situation of joblessness to a job, is to make sure we use programs that we put in place over years and that workers and families have contributed to to give them the opportunity for unemployment benefits as they transition or go across that very long bridge from unemployment to a situation where they are back at work. We have had months and months of debate about this issue. Finally, yesterday, we were able to get beyond yet another hurdle that was erected by the Republican side of the aisle, and now we are at a point where we are beyond that procedural hurdle. Instead of allowing the Senate to finally at long last vote on unemployment insurance and to extend it, to give families some peace of mind in this terrible economy they have lived through, to give businesses some certainty in terms of what the job picture will look like in a matter of months, and also to take a step when we extend unemployment insurance, to take a step in the right direction to continue to jump-start the economy--one of the best ways to do that is by extending unemployment insurance, because when you do that, you have an additional benefit. The obvious benefit is to a worker and his or her family and, by extension, the community or neighborhood they live in. But there is yet another benefit, a second or a third benefit, that is depending on how you count each benefit. You know, if you spend a dollar on extending unemployment insurance, you get a lot more than a dollar back. So you spend a buck on unemployment insurance, by one estimate--Mark Zandi--you get more than a buck sixty back. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that number may be higher. It might be $1.90 that you get back if you spend a dollar. So there is an economic benefit for the whole country when we extend unemployment insurance. This isn't simply about the obligation I believe we have to help those families who don't have a breadwinner, as someone who has lost their job, to help them get through this difficult period. That is reason enough to extend it and it is reason enough to treat it as the emergency it is and to even, in my judgment, add to the deficit to do that. But there is also that other benefit, isn't there, the benefit to the economy overall--spend a buck and get a lot more back--because we know that when we extend unemployment insurance, those dollars go right back into the economy and create other jobs and other economic activity and therefore economic opportunity for people who have nothing to do--have no connection to unemployment insurance. Thank goodness a lot of people don't have to worry about unemployment insurance because they still have a job. They have some security. So there are at least two or three basic reasons we should be extending unemployment insurance. With all of the evidence, with all of the very compelling and, I would argue, irrefutable evidence that this is good for workers and their families, it is necessary to help them, and it is also good for all of us in the larger economy because of the jump-starting and stimulating aspect of the expenditure of those dollars, you would think the folks on the other side of the aisle would agree with us. But they haven't for many, many weeks. Now we know we have the votes to get this done. Yet they are still allowing all these hours to pass that they could waive very easily and say: We know we lost--I am speaking from the Republican side of the aisle--we have lost the procedural votes, so let's just vote on final passage and get this extension approved. They seem to want to play politics with the critically important issue for the American people. We are going to extend the unemployment insurance, and it is going to happen. So why would you insist on the hours that are required--not required but the hours that are part of the process and allow that to slow this down? I was on the floor yesterday talking about a number of Pennsylvanians. One gentleman I spoke about, I talked about, reading from his letter, the worry he had, a gentleman out of work, worried about his family, worried about his 12-year-old daughter who has cystic fibrosis, worrying about how he is going to have insurance cover her condition, and also worrying about whether he can make ends meet, would he find a job, would he be able to provide for his family. That worry is universal when it comes to this issue, the worry a parent feels when they lose their job and lose their health care, the worry that consumes them when they feel they are helpless, almost, to provide for their own family. We point to individuals within our States who write to us or send us an e-mail or somehow communicate with us about their own circumstances. Not too long ago, I received an e-mail from a woman named Kimberly. She and her husband have two children in college. Her husband has been out of work for a year. It is hard to comprehend that, what it is like to need a job to provide for your family and you not only don't have a job but you don't have a job for a year or longer. So many families have been living through that. She said: We have been struggling for a year while he looks for full- time employment with which he can again support our family. Then, speaking about her job, she says: I don't make a lot of money. I don't make enough to support us. And I especially don't make enough to put my kids through college. Then she goes on to say: We may not starve, but we won't be able to pay our creditors. We'll be looking at possible bankruptcy. I may have to pull my daughter out of her 4-year university and send her to a community college, and we won't be able to buy clothes or even enjoy simple pleasures like dining out or going to the movies. Something as simple as that. I spoke yesterday about a woman who had written to me, Rachel, who talked about her husband having lost his job and deciding to join the National Guard in order to be able to have some job, some livelihood, as well as be able to get a little bit better health care coverage. These stories are real. They are not anecdotal. They are common in one sense or another. There might be differences from one family to the other, but there are a couple of universal realities here for people. Joblessness, being out of work, does, in most instances, lead to a situation where you lose your health insurance coverage. Joblessness robs people of their basic dignity. It diminishes their confidence in their own worth, their own value to their family, whether it is a mother being out of work or a father or a sibling. This kind of worry and anxiety plus the basic insecurity of not being able to pay bills is horrific, absolutely horrific, something that not many people--maybe a few, maybe a few Senators can understand it, but not many can understand what it is like not to have income and not to have health care. Everyone here, every Senator has a steady income. It is reliable. It is there every month. You get paid every month. Every Senator gets health care coverage. We have that security for ourselves and for our families. I realize that some at some point in their lives might have an experience that would give them an insight into what someone is going through now who is unemployed, but not many, not many U.S. Senators, not many Members of the House of Representatives or those who work with us in the Federal Government. So when folks come to this floor and talk a lot about, we want to help, the argument basically is, we want to help, we understand, but we don't want to run up the deficit. They make that argument. I wish the same folks who make that argument and the passionate arguments about the deficit and not using an emergency strategy to help the unemployed, I wish they had that same sense of worry and outrage about the deficit when they were giving tax breaks--hundreds of billions of dollars--to very wealthy Americans, hundreds of billions year after year after year to very wealthy Americans and not being too worried about the deficit in those days. In fact, some on the other side of the aisle were heard to say at the time that deficits don't matter; that if it is tax cuts, if that is your priority, if you want to vote, if you want to put forth and move forward a tax cut policy for the very wealthy, at that time, in their judgment, there was nothing wrong with running up the deficit. Now when we make the argument that this is an emergency, the way it has been treated for years by people on both sides of the aisle-- unemployment insurance in the midst of a horrific recession is, in fact, an emergency--and they voted that way, now they are inconsistent, not only inconsistent when it comes to all of a sudden insisting that they can't support anything that would increase the deficit even in a limited manner--that is inconsistent, but I believe it is even more outrageously inconsistent when you say: I will vote for tax cuts for the wealthy and run up the deficit, but I am not going to take steps to increase unemployment insurance or to extend unemployment insurance. So what you have is not only hypocrisy and blatant inconsistency, but you have hypocrisy and inconsistency and political gamesmanship that is hurting real people. There are hundreds of thousands of people. If we look across a couple of months, literally millions of Americans have been denied unemployment insurance and will be denied unemployment insurance if these games keep playing out, if these political obstacles are erected every couple of weeks or every couple of months. It is a very basic choice: We can vote right away and get beyond this and extend unemployment insurance or we can still have the games people are playing and the hypocrisy we have seen on display and continue playing games while people are out of work, while people are hurting, and while families are suffering. It is very simple. There is no kind of in-between here--you are either on one side of this issue or the other. Then we can get through this period. I think we can move on to other debates about our economy, about how our job-creation strategies are working. We can have debates about the deficit and a lot of other issues. But the first thing we have to do is make sure we are taking every step necessary to help people who are out of work through no fault of their own and to continue this recovery by creating the jobs that we know have been and will continue to be created as we move forward. But we have to get beyond this. We should not be waiting hours to get this final vote in place so we can pass an extension of unemployment insurance and move forward and help those workers and help those families. 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 20, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 20, 2010, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Continuing Oversight on International Cooperation to Modernize Financial Regulation.''

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 20, 2010, at 2 p.m.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 20, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to talk about an issue we are going to be voting on today, thank goodness. We are going to be voting on an extension of unemployment insurance, which is something many of us in the Senate have tried to pass for many weeks now. We have been blocked by the Republican side of the aisle. We are finally at a point now where we think we can get the votes today to extend unemployment insurance. It is badly needed. You don't have to be a Senator or a Member of Congress to have heard from people all across this country about what this means to them. Those of us who are serving in the Senate have received letters, e-mails, phone calls, and other communications from people within our States. In Pennsylvania, the people have made it abundantly clear to me and my office over many weeks now about how urgent a problem this is in their lives. This isn't about some complicated, remote issue; this is an issue of life and death, in some instances. But for most, it is an issue of getting by every week, making ends meet, paying bills, providing health care for their children, those who have lost their jobs, through no fault of their own, being able to have the dignity that comes from providing for your family. We know we have more than 14 million Americans out of work. In Pennsylvania, we have over 591,000 people out of work. If that is not a record, it is very close to one. I know it is a high for the last quarter century in Pennsylvania. The last unemployment extension expired 5 weeks ago, on June 4. Without an extension, just about 1.2 million people have lost their benefits in the month of June, just last month. If this continues to be blocked in the Senate, we know another 2 million will be without benefits by the end of this month, July. In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, over 200,000 will have exhausted their unemployment benefits by the end of this month. That means one-third of Pennsylvania's jobless will be without benefits by the end of this month. To say this is anything but an emergency is an understatement. To continue to block an unemployment insurance extension is irresponsible, in a word, and I think callously irresponsible. Also, I think it is an action that is harmful to our economy. We know, for example, that if you spend a buck in unemployment insurance, you will get a lot more than a buck in return for the economic impact. The Congressional Budget Office has an estimate to the effect that for the GDP, gross domestic product, it may be as high as $1.90 for every $1 you spend on unemployment insurance. So you spend a buck and get a $1.90 back. That is an even higher number than a lot of us have pointed to prior to this. Mark Zandi, one of our leading economists, said years ago, I think, that if you spend a buck on unemployment insurance, you get about $1.60 back. Such as when you spend $1 on food stamps, you get more than that--maybe $1.70--in return. Now we have the CBO saying the return might be as high as $1.90 for every $1 you spend on unemployment insurance. There are those in Washington and around the country who are trying to make political arguments against extending this and using a lot of hot air in the process to oppose the extension, block the extension, slow down the effort to provide this bridge that unemployment insurance is, for people who paid into this program for years, in many instances, for just this purpose--when the economy is in the ditch, when they lose jobs and they are trying to get this help. We have had weeks and weeks of efforts to block this. We should be at the end--we hope. In the end, this isn't simply about a program or about an extension or about what the Federal Government is doing; this is about real people and their lives and the challenges in their lives. I have received lots of correspondence--whether they are letters, e- mails or phone calls--and I will highlight a few examples. We had a letter from Frank--I will just use the first name so we don't disclose people's names. He has been seeking employment for a long time. He said: I have gone through a lot of health situations since being home-- Meaning since being home after losing his job. constantly worrying will I get a job, is there going to be enough money, or when are my benefits going to be cutoff. . . . The worries are overpowering and devastating. A lot of these letters we are getting speak in those terms. This isn't a mechanical thing or a question about a program or whether the Senate will do this or that; this is about whether Frank, in this instance, who lives in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, is going to be able to have enough money to provide for his family. So this is about worry and emotion and about real anxiety that people feel in the midst of the most horrific recession since the 1930s. This isn't some far off remote problem; this is real life for someone such as Frank. Then he goes on from there to say: My ex-wife came home from work to advise me and our children that she will be losing her job on August 6, 2010, due to her company outsourcing [the work of that company] to India. She was employed there for 21 years. She carries our medical insurance and 80 percent of our income. We have a 12- year-old [child] with Cystic Fibrosis, which is a fatal disease, and this precious child will be without [health] insurance that pays for the very medicine that keeps her alive. He goes on from there in his letter. I will end the quote with that line about his daughter with cystic fibrosis. So this isn't just about paying the light bill or paying the mortgage or making ends meet in a general way; this is about whether this family can provide health insurance for a 12-year-old with cystic fibrosis. That is what we are talking about, in many instances. We are talking about health care. When you lose your job, unfortunately, the direct impact isn't just on income; it is about whether you have health insurance. That is Frank's story in Pennsylvania. I will give one more example because we are short on time. Rachel, from Pennsylvania, writes to us in an e-mail. She says this: I am writing for my husband. Sometimes a person who loses a job is too embarrassed to write or doesn't want to express the feelings that are tearing them apart inside. They don't want to write down on paper the anxiety they are living with--the horror of not having enough to provide for your family. She is writing for her husband, saying he was laid off from his job as a GPS operator. She said the best way to take care of his family, he thought at that point, was to become an airman in the National Guard. He enlisted this year, and he entered the program for the Air National Guard. He excelled in the program, but he couldn't proceed to basic training because he needs dental work. Rachel and her husband, similar to so many others, have no health and dental insurance. She says--and this is direct quotation from the letter: I am doing everything I can, including working 2 jobs, to keep us above water, and we are drowning at a speed I never imagined. I bring home $700 a month, which doesn't cover our rent, let alone car insurance, groceries, the electric bill, et cetera. We do not want to live extravagantly. We just want to live. That is what Rachel says about her situation because of the loss of a job that her husband had to experience. He is becoming an airman in the National Guard to try to make ends meet. I could go on, but I will not because we don't have the time. That is what this is about. This isn't a theoretical issue or some government program over here that none of us fully understands. This is about real lives, providing health insurance for families, making ends meet, and basic dignity that people feel robbed of because they lost their job, and some people in Washington don't want to lift a finger to help them. It doesn't take much to say aye when your name is called to vote for an extension of unemployment insurance. That is what the program is for. It is for emergencies, when people's lives are at risk--at least the life of their family to be able to make ends meet. That is what we are talking about. That is why I urge every Member of the Senate not to vote for your own political priorities but to vote for Frank and Rachel in Pennsylvania, who have written to us, and people similar to them all across this country. I think we are going to finally get an affirmative vote, but it is long overdue. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

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